For weeks, the media spotlight has fixed on the high-profile comebacks of two former female officials in Hong Kong: former No. 2 leader Anson Chan (
The two women have surprised the territory by unexpectedly lending vocal support to the implementation of full democracy -- an unthinkable stance for either to have taken when in office. Communist leaders in Beijing are wary of drastic political changes, and civil servants rarely speak out against those policies.
But there's little doubt that Ip and Chan -- dubbed the "new democracy dames" -- are determined to take up the sensitive topic, and the duo have quickly emerged as leaders in the push for full democracy.
Their involvement in Hong Kong's flagging debate about when voters should be able to directly elect their leader and entire legislature has rekindled interest in a timetable for political reform, a topic that has taken a back seat amid strong economic growth.
"Ip or Chan's appearance shouldn't just be seen as a power struggle. They may create an interactive effect that will bring long-term influences for Hong Kong's democratic development," said Timothy Wong (
"Both, especially Anson, are focusing on democratic demands. The democracy debate will surely stand out among other issues in the next few years, and this incessant discussion will mean the government can't avoid the topic any longer," Wong said.
Promises
Hong Kong was promised a wide degree of autonomy when it was returned to China in 1997, but Beijing has ruled out full democracy in the near future. Only half of the city's 60 legislators are elected. An 800-member panel loyal to Beijing chooses the territory's leader.
In less than a month, the city has seen Ip launching a think tank, hosting a television talk show, and challenging Chan, among others, to discuss the issue with her.
Meanwhile, Chan has urged Hong Kongers to take to the streets to demand full democracy, and she is also countering the government's studies on democratic reform by setting up her own "core group."
Both women were formidable, tough civil servants when they were in office, and analysts say both probably intend to pave their way for a future leadership run. Ip has declined to talk about her political ambitions, while Chan has not ruled out the possibility.
"I intend to play an active role, and you can expect to hear more from me on this issue," Chan -- who remains highly popular since retiring in 2001 -- said recently.
Chan, 66, was known as a champion of so-called "Western values" such as civil freedoms and human rights when in office. But critics say her passionate calls for a speedy change to full democracy are uncharacteristic of her, and the pro-Beijing camp has accused her of being an opportunist.
Ip's stance, meanwhile, is more intriguing. She was a respected ally of the pro-Beijing camp and widely regarded as a defender of the status quo. She was forced to step down in 2003 after sparking public outrage by standing firmly by a deeply unpopular anti-subversion bill, which many thought would curtail civil liberties. Her handling of the issue was attacked as authoritarian.
But recently, Ip said she was "cautiously optimistic" that Hong Kong could achieve full democracy by 2012 -- although she also stressed that direct elections are not a magic elixir to solve all problems.
Her political views appeared to be more in line with those of the administration. Like Ip, leader Donald Tsang (
"When someone perceived to be a conservative comes out and talks about direct elections by a date as soon as 2012, it shows that the possibility of it happening is growing," Wong said.
But others are less optimistic that either Ip's group or Chan's could make a real difference.
"Their abilities are limited. Do you believe China will accept full democracy in 2012? Realistically, everyone knows that Tsang will surely win in the 2007 elections," said political professor Joseph Cheng (
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