The National People’s Congress (NPC) and the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference met recently. While meeting NPC representatives from Hong Kong on March 7, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), who is in charge of affairs pertaining to Hong Kong and Macau, warned that the economic crisis was worsening and that Hong Kong had been too passive in its response.
Not surprisingly, Xi called on the Hong Kong representatives to support the Special Administrative Region’s (SAR) government, which is headed by Chief Executive Donald Tsang (曾蔭權).
Hong Kong commentators have said that the two meetings are venues for criticizing and monitoring the government in China. Xi, whose performance should have been monitored at these meetings, however, turned things on their head by pointing a finger at the Hong Kong representatives. Even more important is the fact that according to Hong Kong’s Basic Law, Hong Kong should enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all areas aside from affairs related to diplomacy and security, and that at no level should the central government interfere in Hong Kong’s autonomy.
So just what does Xi’s open criticism mean for Hong Kong?
On Feb. 25, the Hong Kong government announced a budget of HK$18.8 billion (US$2.42 billion) to help solve its economic woes. Some pundits said this was too little. However, the government responded by saying that giving out money was not the best way to help the economy, but rather a short-term remedy and a way of appeasing people. Hong Kong Financial Secretary John Tsang (曾俊華) said the government did not exclude the possibility of expanding the scope of such measures in the mid-term.
This means that the government would keep some money back in case of emergencies — if the economic situation were to worsen, for example.
During the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and 1998, John Tsang spent more than US$10 billion in governmental financial reserves to ease the damage, a measure that proved successful. From his past actions, we can clearly see that Hong Kong’s leaders have more experience in handling crises than Xi.
Donald Tsang’s predecessor, Tung Chee-hwa (董建華), was widely criticized as being incompetent and overly reliant on Beijing. He was also famous for saying how Hong Kong would prosper as long as China prospered. However, the result of this policy was that China prospered while Hong Kong decayed, with almost 1 million people hitting the streets over security legislation and forcing Beijing to replace Tung with Donald Tsang. “Patriots” in Hong Kong view Tsang as a leftover of British rule, but the truth of the matter is that this British-trained civil servant is much more flexible and capable of dealing with issues than his predecessor.
Tsang has also showed himself to be more sensitive to social issues and more concerned with public opinion.
Of course, Beijing remains the source of Tsang’s power and he must be loyal to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This puts him in a sticky situation, as he is forced to keep a distance from Hong Kong’s “patriots,” which makes it difficult for him to please all the parties involved.
Neither Tung nor Tsang have dared interfere with the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary. Beijing’s insistence that Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal explain, on three separate occasions, the legal basis of its decisions clearly shows how Beijing is interfering with Hong Kong’s affairs. Other examples can be seen from how Tung was forced to resign over controversies surrounding Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, or the public Radio Television Hong Kong’s (RTHK) running some anti-CCP programs that were strongly criticized by “patriots.” Neither Tung nor Tsang dared do anything rash about the matter because they had to respect the principle of editorial autonomy at RTHK. In the end, they used financial audits to force a minor change, but they remained very careful in handling the renewal of personnel.
These show that even though CCP officials may apply pressure and tamper with Hong Kong’s affairs, lower-level government officials and Hong Kong’s society in general do posses a certain amount of power to keep the CCP in check. Of course, another factor in this equation is that Beijing has to make a good show for Taiwan and is therefore limited in what it can do in Hong Kong. This is one point that everybody must keep in mind when it comes to the CCP.
Just after Chinese emissary Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taiwan in November, a friend in Hong Kong asked me: “Why are you [Taiwan] being taken over by China even quicker than Hong Kong?”
This awakened an interest in drawing the differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan.
When it comes to judicial independence and respect for the media, the Taiwanese government is lagging far behind Hong Kong, despite Hong Kong having already returned to Chinese rule. This is because Hong Kong was under British rule for 150 years and as a result inherited a more complete set of social regulations. Freedom, human rights, the independence of the judiciary and administrative neutrality are ingrained in the minds of Hong Kong’s civil servants. These are not things the CCP can easily remove within a short period of time.
Compared with British Hong Kong, Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese for a short period. After that, it was ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which derived its style of rule from a hierarchical, Confucian concept of governance. This is why the KMT believes it owns the courts and why President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) may at times sound like he worships dictators like Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).
Since Ma became president, government officials have literally been falling over themselves to kowtow to China.
Taiwanese must therefore be alert to the risk of a new 228 Incident as a means to eliminate Taiwanese independence, which would bring disastrous results for Taiwan. Legislators from the KMT want to expand the rights to investigate personal data, which raises the question of whether they are trying to prepare files for Taiwanese individuals to hand over to the CCP. Time is running out and if Taiwanese do not step up to the plate, it will be too late.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
A recent scandal involving a high-school student from a private school in Taichung has reignited long-standing frustrations with Taiwan’s increasingly complex and high-pressure university admissions system. The student, who had successfully gained admission to several prestigious medical schools, shared their learning portfolio on social media — only for Internet sleuths to quickly uncover a falsified claim of receiving a “Best Debater” award. The fallout was swift and unforgiving. National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and Taipei Medical University revoked the student’s admission on Wednesday. One day later, Chung Shan Medical University also announced it would cancel the student’s admission. China Medical
Construction of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County’s Hengchun Township (恆春) started in 1978. It began commercial operations in 1984. Since then, it has experienced several accidents, radiation pollution and fires. It was finally decommissioned on May 17 after the operating license of its No. 2 reactor expired. However, a proposed referendum to be held on Aug. 23 on restarting the reactor is potentially bringing back those risks. Four reasons are listed for holding the referendum: First, the difficulty of meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets and the inefficiency of new energy sources such as photovoltaic and wind power. Second,
RSS