The news on Saturday that Hong Kongers may be allowed to directly elect their chief executive by 2017 and lawmakers by 2020 has been greeted as a sign that Beijing would live up to the commitment it has made to allow the territory universal suffrage.
But while some celebrated, others cried foul -- and justifiably so.
The key word is "may," which means that the decision -- if we can call it that -- is anything but a promise. Rather, it leaves the door wide open for Beijing to renege on that statement, which it could do by citing threats to Hong Kong's social stability or to its economic health and any number of reasons in between.
The last thing Beijing wants is to open the Pandora's box of democracy, as yielding in Hong Kong would surely lead to demands from other provinces that, left unchecked, could spread across the country. Beijing is terrified of democracy because it knows that it is the one tool, short of civil war, that can threaten its hold on power.
The remark on Saturday, with Chief Executive Donald Tsang (
It would be pure foolishness to take Beijing's declaration at face value, which, sadly, is what many in the international community will likely do. This is yet another sign, we can hear them saying, that Beijing is becoming more "normal" and playing by rules befitting a state that is integrating itself in the global scheme of things.
One need only scratch the surface of Beijing's promises, however, to find that they cannot be relied on. The accelerating pace of arrests of Chinese dissidents in the run-up to the Olympics -- now only eight months away -- should be enough to remind the gullible that Beijing uses promises more for short-term troubleshooting than for framing binding commitments.
The vow China made to ensure media freedoms in its bid for the Beijing Olympics, for example, was utilitarian and insincere. Beijing won the Games it desperately wanted and, once this was achieved, things returned to normal -- including no one bothering to conceal the broken promises.
All of which is enough to make Hong Kongers skeptical. If Beijing so easily breaks its promises to the international community, what prevents it from doing so within its borders?
But China has time on its side. And as 2017 approaches, the rules of the game will change. Arguments for delays and further delays will pile up, as will demands for patience. The mere five-year delay will suddenly find itself lengthening, time will be bought and those who criticize Beijing will be portrayed once more as impatient and irresponsible troublemakers.
Democracy will remain just too dangerous a gift for the Chinese government to bestow upon its people.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and