Following my participation in the recent "Hong Kong Under One Country, Two Systems" symposium organized by Taiwan Advocates in Taipei, I continued on to Hong Kong. The symposium had actually stirred up a storm there, which still hasn't subsided. In Hong Kong, the symposium was distorted differently from the way it was distorted in Taipei, but with the same results.
The lectures given by two distinguished guests from the US and Japan and the analyses by Legislative Council (Legco) members Emily Lau (劉慧卿) and James To (涂謹申) and other experts and scholars from Hong Kong of the territory's Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" model, the destructive influence of Article 23 in the Basic Law on the territory's freedom, human rights and legal system, and the transformation of Hong Kong's social culture following its return to China, were never reported by certain media.
These media only reported the interaction between President Chen Shui-bian (
At a round table meeting, some participants from Hong Kong countered criticism from the symposium organizers by saying that as Hong Kong has no choice, they can only pin their hopes on the "one country, two systems" model. This was widely reported by these media as if they had they stumbled over a great scoop -- it seemed the symposium had turned into a meeting in praise of the "one country, two systems" model.
The situation in Hong Kong, however, was the exact opposite. People close to China launched "revolutionary criticism" against the two Legco members. Every kind of scary political epithet flew through the air, stopping just short of getting the pair thrown in jail. The pretext was that the two had pushed support for Taiwan's independence to the fore with the purpose of promoting Hong Kong independence. Their critics demanded that a national security law be rapidly promulgated so that sanctions could be taken against them.
The deputy director of the China Central Government Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Liaison Office and China's mouthpieces issued statements, while some of the supporters of the July 1 demonstrations hurried to distance themselves from these statements. Reprimands were also heard from within democratic ranks. Lau and To were forced to call a press conference to defend themselves.
Even though Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee (
The above situation demonstrates that even though Taiwan and Hong Kong want to make the "one country, two systems" model look good, they offer two completely different interpretations of the symposium in order to serve their own political needs.
In Hong Kong, individuals close to China need to extract themselves from their passivity during the July 1 demonstration. The best way to do this is to claim that the demonstration was initiated by external forces. This would prove their own great perspicacity. It would also whip up nationalist sentiment and could even become an excuse to call for military suppression of such demonstrations.
In Taiwan, "one China" is a dead-end street for people close to the Chinese Communist Party. They therefore need to spruce up the "one country, two systems" model to be able to make the Taiwanese public accept the unification ideology. They therefore took things out of context and distorted them, while keeping the true facts of the symposium from becoming generally known. The problem remains that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
This being so, why don't the media close to the KMT keep in line with Lien? Have the media been co-opted by China, or is Lien being less than honest?
The reason given by the participants from Hong Kong for criticizing the symposium for taking advantage of the 500,000-strong demonstration on July 1 to create an issue for Taiwan's upcoming presidential election was that there never has been any interest in Taiwan regarding how the "one country, two systems" model works in Hong Kong.
Such criticism doesn't hold water. When I visited Taiwan in March, I learned that this symposium was planned for the eve of the sixth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, and that it was postponed only because of concerns over SARS.
It was also in a discussion regarding the "one country, two systems" model with Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chen Ming-tong (
Over the years, I have often commented on the "one country, two systems" model in Hong Kong. This clarifies the fact that Taiwan does care about Hong Kong's fate under that system and that it is not taking advantage of the 500,000-strong demonstration to produce an issue for the upcoming presidential election.
We can't blame some of the Hong Kong participants in the symposium for having this mistaken understanding of Taiwan (that the country doesn't care about the fate of Hong Kong under the "one country, two systems" model). Such beliefs are the result of having only been in touch with a certain kind of Taiwanese media -- the kind which need to avoid the problems surrounding the "one country, two systems" model in Hong Kong in order to keep the Taiwanese public from losing faith in the "one China" concept.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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