The huge turnout of over 80,000 people at the June 4 candlelight vigil in Victoria Park last week was the Hong Kong people's response to the central government's decision to tighten control over the Special Administrative Region. Many people attended the vigil because they could not forget or forgive the Tiananmen massacre, but many more took part because they defiantly regarded it as a sign of protest against diminishing freedom in the territory.
Just hours before the vigil, I attended a forum in Victoria Park to discuss Tiananmen and constitutional reforms in Hong Kong. One member of the audience said the next time people march to the Central Government's Liaison Office in the Western district to protest, instead of urging the crowd to disperse right away, the organizers should direct demonstrators to stage a two-hour sit-in. He said the objective would be to strengthen the protesters' demands.
Since Beijing decided in April to rule out direct elections in Hong Kong in 2007 and 2008, the political atmosphere has become very tense. Apart from banning democratic elections, the central authorities also want Hong Kong people not to march on July 1 and not to vote for pro-democracy politicians in the Legislative Council election on Sept. 12.
Beijing's high-handed decision has filled many Hong Kong people with revulsion and despair; hence some people are pressing for a more radical form of protest. I do agree that Hong Kong should send a strong message to Beijing about the people's determination to preserve freedom and to fight for democracy. However, we should not resort to measures that would paralyze traffic or create huge inconveniences. Last July the people showed that they were prepared to stand up for their rights, and hundreds of thousands of people are expected to march again on July 1 this year.
However, some people may stay away if there are signs of violence or disturbance. Last year when more than half a million people marched in scorching heat, there was not a single incident. Such responsibility and self-restraint were much admired by the international community. A strong signal about the community's unity and sense of purpose was also sent. Thus the best way forward is to insist on protesting peacefully with dignity, determination and self-restraint.
Looking to the Legislative Council election in September, Hong Kong people should be psychologically prepared for a long, hot summer filled with political struggle, scandals, smear tactics and possibly even violence. This is because the Chinese authorities are worried that pro-democracy candidates may be able to secure a majority in the Council, and think that would make the territory ungovernable. Thus they are intervening to prevent that outcome.
Most people in my generation are not used to communist-style politics, and "one country, two systems" is intended to prevent the Chinese political system from spreading to Hong Kong. Now that the central authorities have decided to intervene, that shield has been removed and the local people have no choice but to deal with Chinese politics directly. In so doing, Hong Kong's people are like babes in the wood. Faced with the communist regime and its arbitrary and ruthless way of doing things, many Hong Kong people are very frightened. This is a big challenge and the people's wisdom will be severely tested.
The candlelight vigil last week was for the first time attended by people from China. It is not surprising that some Chinese people want to find out what happened 15 years ago. They must have found it refreshing and stunning to be able to have access to such information. When they return home, they will share the information with their friends and relatives.
Apart from Chinese visitors and tourists, it has been said that the Chinese authorities, both from Beijing and other provinces, have sent officials and security agents to the territory to monitor the situation. Some political activists are concerned that some people may try to cause trouble and create disturbances, and this will give the police an excuse to intervene or even compel the organizers to abandon the march on July 1.
Such a tense atmosphere is bad for Hong Kong and is weighing very heavily on the minds of people, be they rich or poor. This negative development, though not unexpected, has seriously undermined "one country, two systems." Instead of taking the people's concerns seriously, the territory's government simply dismissed them by arguing that the people's rights are protected by the Basic Law and saying that the central government will not do anything to undermine "one country, systems." Such a lame response does little to enhance public confidence and re-enforces the conviction that Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
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