Last week I attended an evening forum at the Chinese University of Hong Kong organized by the student union as part of their orientation program. The topic was "Life without Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa" (董建華). This is not only the wish of many of the students, but also the fervent desire of many people in Hong Kong. Even those people who are not prepared to publicly urge Tung to step down will not deny that they welcome his early departure.
After the long summer recess, the Legislative Council (Legco) resumes its last session in the current four-year term. Legco will stop its operations in mid July next year, to be followed by an election in September. At the first sitting of the current Legco session on Oct. 8, I moved a motion on behalf of the Anti-Tung Solidarity calling on the chief executive to step down because of his failure to defend human rights and the rule of law, his inability to promote economic development and his refusal to conduct democratic political reforms.
Since Tung was anointed by Beijing and the tycoons to be the first chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) in July 1997, he has brought misery and degradation to many people in the territory. The number of households living in abject poverty -- earning less than HK$4,000 (US$517) a month -- has more than doubled from 85,000 in 1996 to almost 200,000 this year. Deflation has been raging for 60 months.
Tung's refusal to engage the public in the policy decision-making process and his tendency to listen only to those who are loyal to him have resulted in incoherent and unpopular policies and embarrassing U-turns. His lack of regard for civil liberties and the rule of law, which are the pillar of the territory's success, has caused resentment in the community. It was his rough attempt to rush the controversial bill on Article 23 of the Basic Law through Legco in July which triggered the massive demonstration on July 1.
Since that historic march, my motion debate in Legco was the first opportunity for members to address the issue of whether Tung should step down as demanded by many of the protesters. Public opinion surveys conducted since the demonstration consistently showed that more than 60 percent of the respondents do not want him as chief executive. Those who support him is about 20 percent.
In May, the Legco voted down a similar motion moved by independent member Albert Chan (陳偉業), and my motion was also defeated. However this does not mean the debate was a waste of time. As pro-democracy legislators have often said, although we are a minority in the undemocratically elected Legco, we represent the majority view in the community. As noted by an editorial in the South China Morning Post, "the debate served to underline the depth of negative feeling about Tung's style of leadership."
The political crisis triggered by the massive turnout on July 1 has not only devastated the establishment, but also aroused concern in Beijing that the authorities here might have lost control of the situation. In order to restore order and pacify the disgruntled, the central government has taken the unprecedented step of inviting many delegations to Beijing, to hear their views on how to solve the problems facing Hong Kong and on who should be the next chief executive.
In order to help maintain stability and boost confidence in the territory, Beijing has also bent over backwards to make a number of gestures. These included withdrawing the bill on Article 23, concluding the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and allowing more Chinese tourists to visit the SAR. Plans are also afoot to cut the price of drinking water that the SAR buys from the Guangdong Province.
Thus if the political crisis is temporarily averted and the people are feeling slightly better, it is due to the efforts of Beijing and not because Tung has responded to the wishes of the masses by changing the style and substance of governance and by introducing democratic political reforms.
If Tung and his administration had taken active steps to address the concerns of the masses, I might not have to move my motion in Legco. Having seen Tung in action for over six years, however, many people believe he is unwilling and unable to change. Furthermore, Beijing's attempts to bail out Tung could have serious consequences.
The numerous visits to Beijing by Hong Kong delegations and the offers of economic assistance by the central government will inevitably blur the boundary of "one country, two systems" and create a climate for more intervention in the territory's affairs, thus undermining Hong Kong's "high degree of autonomy."
Of the many views reflected to the territory and central governments, one should be taken with utter caution. Some commentators said the July 1 demonstration was a protest by the middle class. This is highly misleading and will not help to solve the problems besetting Hong Kong.
The massive outpouring of anger and frustration on July 1 came from people from all walks of life. Many middle class professionals and managers indeed took part in the march, and many of them are hopping mad with Tung. But so did many people from the grassroots and their concerns are equally pressing. Thus it would be ridiculous to think the problems facing Hong Kong would be solved by addressing the concerns of the middle class. Such a mis-reading of the situation is unfortunate and unhelpful.
Besides inviting people from the territory to Beijing to air their grievances, the Chinese authorities have also sent emissaries to Hong Kong to sound the people out. Some people who recently met with these Chinese visitors said they referred to Tung in the past tense and were intensely interested in what should happen after Tung is gone. In a nutshell, they wanted to know what can be done to restore consensus and stability in the territory. The name of Henry Tang (唐英年), the current financial secretary who succeeded the disgraced Antony Leung (梁錦松), was floated as a possible successor to Tung.
Such enquiries show that the Chinese authorities are not as self-deceiving and naive as some people think. No doubt many people have seen the writing on the wall and the pro-government Legco members who voted down my motion are only hiding their heads in the sand.
During the motion debate I also pointed out the crisis of July 1 has had a deleterious effect on the authority of the Tung administration. A middle ranking civil ser-vant who took part in the big march recently told me: "This government has not got a shred of authority left. Many people now treat us with disrespect and even contempt. It is only professional people like us who are shoring the administration up." Such lack of morale within the civil service must be a matter of deep concern.
Last week the long-awaited report of the SARS Expert Committee was published. It quickly attracted a barrage of criticism for failing to identify the senior officials who should be held account-able for mishandling this crisis. Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food Yeoh Eng-kiong (楊永強) bore the brunt of the attacks in the media and was asked by several newspapers to step down. The question is, if Yeoh is under pressure to quit because he has mishandled the SARS outbreak, why shouldn't Tung, who has made many more blunders than Yeoh, be asked to step down?
On the day of my Legco motion debate, the people of California voted to banish unpopular Governor Gray Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him. The people of Hong Kong looked on with deep envy, knowing full well that if we had the same opportunity here, Tung would be voted out of office in no time.
Emily Lau is a legislative councilor in Hong Kong and convener of the Frontier Party.
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