Last month's massive demonstrations in Hong Kong, when over half a million residents poured into the streets in protest against the government of Chief Execu-tive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華), continues to echo. Never in Hong Kong's history has popular opposition -- uniting investment bankers, street hawkers, off-duty civil servants and artists, among others -- been so loud. China's communist rulers are dithering about how to respond.
One objective of the demonstrators was to voice their desire to select Hong Kong's future leaders through universal suffrage. Today, 800 electors handpicked by the Chinese government -- who mostly represent big business -- choose Hong Kong's chief executive.
The unpopularity of Hong Kong's incompetent and sycophantic chief executive, chosen by China for a second five-year term that will only end in 2007, creates a grave dilemma for Beijing's rulers. Before last month's protests, they hoped that Hong Kong would provide so attractive an example of the idea of "one country, two systems" that Taiwan would be lured into accepting the sovereignty of the government in Beijing. Now Taiwan's leaders point to Hong Kong as a failed model of a flawed concept.
Indeed, Tung's anticipatory subservience to the real or imagined wishes of China's rulers exposed the congenital flaw in the political architecture of uniting a liberal society with a dictatorship. That flaw infects the heart of the "one country, two systems" notion: the idea that genuine autonomy can exist in a country whose supreme leaders do not believe in rule by consent.
Now China's rulers find themselves trapped in a bind. If they back Tung unconditionally for the rest of his term, they can look forward to the collapse of their long-term strategy to reabsorb Taiwan, for the alternative to peaceful unification with Taiwan is coercion.
But any resort to coercion increases the likelihood of military confrontation with the US, Taiwan's protector. In this context, the steady build-up of China's short to medium-range missile capability is a cause for alarm, such missiles being the principle threat against Taiwan. As the US Defense Department's Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China recently put it, "The primary driving force for China's military modernization is Beijing's perceived need to prepare credible military options in any potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait."
Such a nightmare scenario isn't at all likely in Hong Kong, but a steady rot of Hong Kong's vitality is. For if the frustrations of ordinary Hong Kong citizens are allowed to fester without a genuine commitment by China to allow for universal suffrage by 2007, a far more serious eruption of social and political unrest beckons.
Such frustrations are growing. Unemployment now stands at 9 percent -- unimaginable before the handover in 1997, when both Tung and China promised that Hong Kong would do even better under Chinese sovereignty than under British rule. In fact, many observers believe that Hong Kong's real rate of joblessness is much higher, and fear that the trend is not encouraging.
China's leaders, and their handpicked servants in Hong Kong may still believe that Tung's popularity will revive if and when the economy does. So they comfort themselves with the thought that demands for democratization reflect Hong Kong's economic woes, nothing more.
But six years of divisive as well as dismissively haughty misrule by Tung's administration, which pits one group against another as its preferred method of governance, suggest that Hong Kong's problems are much deeper. Hong Kong is now an acrimoniously divided society harking back to the days when Chinese communists routinely classified their own citizens as either "the people" or "enemies of the state."
Most people in Hong Kong now recognize that their stagnating economy is not merely a matter of bad policy. It also results from deeply flawed political structures. In an oligarchic economy such as that of today's Hong Kong, the costs of stagnation and the fruits of growth are distributed in grossly unfair ways. This cynical structure must be changed if people are to have enough confidence in the future for the economy to recover.
If China's rulers heed the wishes of Hong Kong's 7 million people to have the right to elect their own leaders through direct elections, however, they face the prospect that China's 1.3 billion people will demand the same right. Perhaps so. But a political system is only ever truly put at risk when leaders consistently misrule.
Indeed, democracies are so stable because they allow misrule to be ended through regularly scheduled elections. Because stability is their great goal, China's communist rulers, if they are wise, will allow Hong Kong to show the way to a system in which Chinese govern themselves democratically, peacefully and prosperously. Taiwan has already done so. Hong Kong provides a more intimate case study for China's people to watch and one day follow.
But if the goal is merely for the communists to retain their mono-poly on power, in both Hong Kong and China, then the rot that has settled into Hong Kong's polity and its economy may begin to infect the mainland. At that point, China might wish it had never heard of Tung. Indeed, it might wish it had never secured Hong Kong's return.
Shaw Sin-ming was a leading Hong Kong investment fund manager. He is now a resident scholar at Oriel College, Oxford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US