My visit to Taipei in mid-August to attend a seminar on Hong Kong under "one-country, two-systems" has stirred up a hornets' nest. The Chinese Communist news media and people from the pro-Beijing camp have launched Cultural Revolution-like attacks on me because I had the temerity to attend a function organized by Taiwan Advocates, a think-tank led by former president Lee Teng-hui (
According to the sycophantic communist news media, attending the seminar was equivalent to supporting Taiwan's indepen-dence. The English-language China Daily went further, saying that I "would most probably incite a referendum to decide on Hong Kong's independence and commit the crime of secession." Remarks by Hong Kong Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee (
Apart from myself, over 20 Hong Kong academics and journalists attended the seminar in Taipei. But I was singled out for malicious attacks that were aimed at creating a chilling effect to deter similar contacts between the two peoples. The assault on me was also aimed at diverting attention from the aftermath of the July demonstration which attracted well over half a million people protesting against the administration of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
The despicable tactics used against me are bound to have a detrimental impact, not only on freedom of expression but also academic and journalistic freedoms. People from universities and the news media may not want to engage in dialogue with the Taiwanese people lest they should come under similar attacks. How can this serve the interests of China or Hong Kong?
My other big "crime" was to have said that the future of Tai-wan should be determined by its people. Pro-Beijing factions argued that any open support for the concept of self-determination by Chinese residents in Taiwan may result in the secession of Taiwan. The ironic implication is that they apparently believe that if the Taiwanese people were given a free choice, they would opt for independence.
My views on self-determination are not new. In the early 1980s, when Britain and China held talks on the future of Hong Kong, I said the future of the territory should be decided by its residents. In May 2000, I made similar remarks at a Legislative Council motion debate on opposing Taiwan's independence. At that time, it did not stir up any interest.
I understand it is the policy of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a part of China, and Beijing would like to use the "one-country, two systems" model to take back Taiwan. However it is one thing for the central government to have such a policy, but the people should have the freedom to express opposing views.
This should be particularly so in Hong Kong. When Britain handed the territory over to China in 1997, the people were promised that the freedoms we enjoyed before the change in sovereignty would be preserved for 50 years. We were never told that our freedom of expression did not include the right to voice dissenting views on central government policies.
Yet the verbal attacks on me and a more physical one on my Shatin ward office on Sept. 3 have filled me and my supporters with revulsion and contempt. When more than half a million people took to the streets on July 1, the international community was deeply impressed with the peaceful and orderly demonstrations. But when an elected legislator's ward office is viciously attacked, shouldn't it raise questions about the rule of law?
Because of my outspokenness, I have been banned from travelling to the mainland for almost 10 years now. This is part of Beijing's tactic to marginalize its critics. But are the recent attacks on me a part of the central government's policy on Taiwan?
What would the Taiwanese people think when they see that a Hong Kong legislator cannot have the freedom to attend a seminar and to say that the future of Taiwan is up to Taiwanese people? They must wonder what freedom Hong Kong people enjoy under "one country, two systems."
No doubt the powers that be want to "kill the chicken in order to scare the monkey," to use a Chinese proverb. But do they know that they have also put off many people in Taiwan and in the international community? If the people of Hong Kong cannot enjoy basic freedoms, how can anyone believe that the territory's broader lifestyle will be preserved for the full 50 years as promised?
On Sept. 5, Tung said his administration would withdraw the controversial bill on Article 23 from the legislature. This was an attempt to pacify the jittery public. However, the attacks I have had to endure showed that even without such harsh laws, Hong Kong people's freedom to voice dissenting views already is in grave doubt.
Emily Lau is a legislative councilor in Hong Kong and convener of the Frontier Party.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath