Today Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa (
It is interesting to examine the reasons for the change. The primary one seems to be that by removing civil servants from the forging of policy and confining their role to its implementation, only the government will thereby safeguard administrative neutrality, protect civil servants from political pressure and make policymakers themselves more accountable for their actions.
This is of course nonsense. The 14 "ministers" are accountable to nobody except Tung himself. Neither Hong Kong's people nor its legislature had any say in their appointment. What in fact the move does is to take policymaking out of the hands of professional civil servants whose jobs are protected in such a way as that they can say no to Tung, and put it in the hands of Tung cronies. This will certainly strengthen the position of the thoroughly disliked Tung over the territory's government.
As a "reform" it simply makes a mockery of the word. It is simply a plan to pull the teeth of the civil service, which has been protective of the independence and professionalism it had under British rule and has been slow to dance to Beijing's tune. The undermining and eventual destruction of Anson Chan (
Delights in store for the people of Hong Kong over the next five years include new laws on secession and subversion, and the banning of local political groups from contact with foreign organizations. Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen (
Much of the commentary concerning this melancholy anniversary has been along the lines of "it could have been a lot worse." Maybe, but not without seriously damaging Hong Kong economically. The territory is being run by an unelected clique of tycoons without a shred of accountability to anyone except their equally unelected political masters in Beijing. The system is actually less accountable now than it was under British colonial rule.
How is this going to appeal to the people of Taiwan? We ask this question because, of course, Hong Kong was supposed to be the showcase that proved that "one country, two systems" was viable. The lesson that watching five years of Chinese rule of Hong Kong has taught us is that Beijing will immediately dissolve your legislature and reelect it on a limited franchise calculated to produce "acceptable" results. It will then impose upon you a leader you did not choose, who will surround himself with toadies and cronies that cannot be removed except on his say so. It will insist that you pass laws limiting freedom of speech and criminalizing some areas of legitimate political discussion -- the question of secession, for example -- and give its favored cronies like Sally Aw immunity from prosecution.
Does this sound like anything? To us it sounds like the detestable KMT regime of the Chiangs of infamous memory. It has taken us a decade and a half of effort to consign that to history. Why would we want to live with it again?
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers