On Wednesday, China's National People's Congress (NPC) Standing Committee issued yet another interpretation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This was the third such interpretation since Hong Kong's handover to China in 1997, confirming that autonomy for the Special Administrative Region under the so-called "one country, two systems" model is nothing but a fairy tale.
The two prior interpretations of the Basic Law were made in 1999 and around this time last year. By issuing the first interpretation, the standing committee actually overturned a ruling by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal that the children of people with Hong Kong residency status were entitled to residency in the Special Administrative Region as well. So, only two years after the handover, Beijing had impatiently seized the opportunity to tell the people of Hong Kong who gets to call the shots.
Then, in April last year, the committee issued the second interpretation of the Basic Law by adding two procedural requirements for revision of the law governing the formation of the Legislative Council. The committee ruled that the three requirements stated in the Basic Law -- approval by at least two-thirds of the Legislative Council members, the chief executive and the NPC Central Standing Committee -- must be preceded by two new procedural requirements: an announcement by the chief executive that an amendment is being sought and a decision by the standing committee to proceed with the revision.
It was Beijing's intention to make it more difficult to change the law governing the formation of the Legislative Council, so as to decrease the risk that the number of democratically elected members on the Legislative Council may be increased as a result. The irony is that it was virtually impossible to amend the law to begin with, as the approval of two-thirds of the Legislative Council's members is required, while only half the members are democratically elected and the rest are puppets appointed by Beijing.
This latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the standing committee states that former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa's (
Issuing interpretations of the Basic Law has become routine for the standing committee. This means that Beijing intends to intervene regularly in the affairs of the Special Administrative Region. Under the circumstances, for anyone to believe that the Special Administrative Region enjoys any realistic autonomy is naive.
If it had been Beijing's intention to use Hong Kong as an example to convince the world that the "one country, two systems" model is a workable solution, it is obviously not working. But Beijing seems less and less worried about its inability to "lure" Taiwan into accepting the "one country, two systems" model through Hong Kong's example. Perhaps this is because Beijing feels increasingly confident about its ability to "impose" the system rather than coaxing acceptance. If that is the case, Taiwan really has something to worry about.
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past