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.
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