Hong Kong made a big splash when the colony was transferred to China in 1997. Before that, Beijing would go into a tizzy when Governor Chris Patten attempted to belatedly introduce democracy in Hong Kong. After the transfer of power it was hoped that China wouldn't stifle the process of democratization; if not for any thing else but to lure Taiwan into its embrace. Not that Taipei was keen on it. But Beijing still hoped.
But recent developments in Hong Kong would seem to have put paid to any possibility of Taiwan's voluntary unification with China. The reappointment of Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) for a second term (starting July 1), without any pretense of popular selection/election, is increasingly making its autonomy a sick joke. He is simply Beijing's man doing its bidding.
He is known to be deeply unpopular in Hong Kong, and his reappointment is a clear message to the people that it is Beijing's mandate, and not popular mandate, that counts. Which makes Tung, in turn, contemptuous of public opinion. How else would one explain his decision to appoint (from July 1) 14 "ministers" to run the government. They will be responsible to Tung, holding office at his pleasure, subject, of course, to Beijing's dictation. There will be no public accountability by way of election of any sort or legislative control.
Still, it is being sold as an exercise in greater accountability. Well, Orwellian newspeak is alive and kicking not only in China but even in its "model" autonomous region. From the Beijing oligarchy to its Hong Kong satrap and his minions, there is now a chain of command running the territory without answering to its people. Hong Kong's partly elected legislative council is blissfully ignored in the process. And why not, as it has no real powers. Tung is sure to further emasculate the legislature during his second term.
Why is Beijing slowly, but surely, eroding Hong Kong's autonomy? Could it be that, if allowed to develop its popular institutions, its example might threaten the political system in the mainland? Its leaders seem to think so. Otherwise, they wouldn't impose on its people a highly unpopular Tung as their chief. The message is quite clear: that Hong Kong remains a colony -- this time governed from the homeland. The perceived threat to the system on the mainland is palpable because any alternative system based on popular legitimacy is a threat to the communist oligarchy.
The lack, if not absence, of popular legitimacy is a serious problem for the leadership in Beijing. But the alternative of participatory democracy is tantamount to political harakiri. Admitting it, though, is a problem. Therefore, democracy is denigrated as a danger to the country's stability, growth and prosperity. In other words, China without the communists will mean chaos.
But, increasingly, it is becoming difficult to define and relate the country to communist ideology. "Greed is glorious" doesn't have the ring of idealism. The communist revolution, with the party in the vanguard role as rulers, was supposed to usher in a workers' paradise. With rising unemployment and increased layoffs from state enterprises, the supposed workers' paradise is as distant as ever. But the leadership in Beijing is as resourceful as ever in coining new meanings and slogans.
We all remember how when Khrushchev sought to rework Marxist ideology in the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, he was reviled by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) as a revisionist. It split the communist bloc, with resultant "revisionist" (Soviet Union) and "dogmatist" (China) labels as part of a vicious ideological/power struggle. But whenever Beijing took liberties with the communist orthodoxy, it was simply creative development with Chinese characteristics.
And they are at it again. Jiang Zemin (江澤民) is the new prophet with his "Three Represents" contribution. According to this, the party doesn't need to exclusively represent the working class. Everyone who contributes to the nation is entitled to join the party. The party is moving with the times to represent the needs of "the most advanced forces of production," advanced culture and all its citizens. Contributors include the country's new capitalist class, causing some resentment among sections of the party.
One constant feature of China's "creative" interpretation of communist ideology has been the uncreative monopoly of power exercised by the party. But with economic liberalism, a new middle and entrepreneurial class has emerged and is expanding. With time, they will obviously want a share of political power to advance the interests of their class. So far, a nexus has developed between them and the party, with the governing political elite getting their cut in the country's new wealth. This includes the princelings of the top leadership co-opted into businesses as partners and executives. Hence, the institutionalization of corruption.
As He Qinglian (何清漣) (she had to flee China to go into exile) points out in her book, China's Pitfall, the process of economic reform in the '90s (the urban and the industrial phase) was an exercise in plundering wealth between the power-holders and their hangers-on. And: "The primary target of their plunder was state property that had been accumulated from forty years of the people's sweat, and their primary means of plunder was political power." The process apparently continues.
Jiang's doctrine of "Three Represents" will systemize this process within a political framework. Once the new capitalist class is part of the political system, it will be committed to it and its perpetuation. It is better to have them "inside" rather than outside.
With such "creative" interpretation, it is no wonder that Hong Kong will increasingly be sucked into the mainland system. In this "marketization of power," there will be a place for Taiwan as a subsidiary of the power elite in China. Whether Taiwan would like to be consigned to this position is another question.
Sushil P. Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with