In January, five opposition legislators representing the five major electoral districts in Hong Kong resigned, triggering special elections scheduled for May 16. Frustrated by the lack of democratic development and interference from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Hong Kong’s political affairs, the opposition parties are hoping to turn the special by-election into a de facto referendum on democratic reform.
Beijing condemned the resignations, describing the planned referendum as a challenge to its authority. Most of the parties with ties to the CCP — such as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Liberal Party and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions — have let it be known they will boycott the elections.
Beijing turned up the rhetoric at the weekend, when Peng Qinghua (彭清華), head of China’s liaison office in the territory, suggested to Hong Kong delegates on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress in Beijing that the referendum plan somehow threatens social stability.
“This is a total violation of mainstream public opinion, which demands stability, harmony and development,” he said.
Former Hong Kong legislator Rita Fan (范徐麗泰), who is now a member of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, has called the referendum campaign a “farce” and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
It is ironic that Peng chose to apply the same language used in China to justify a lack of democracy — “stability, harmony and development” — to a rich and stable enclave of 7 million people. While a case could be made that such a focus is necessary when a country is still developing — and there is no doubt that, for the most part, China remains a developing country — this rationalization can hardly be applied to Hong Kong.
Equally ironic is that Beijing and the parties it backs in Hong Kong presume to somehow know “mainstream public opinion” before a referendum has been held, preferring to deride as “farce” and boycott a tool that would allow them to truly gauge public opinion.
Hong Kong has a mature enough political system for its people to know what they want. Beijing does not want such ideas to be aired publicly, not because it knows what’s best for Hong Kong residents, but because it considers those ideas dangerous. It’s not that Beijing fears chaos would erupt if universal suffrage were introduced in Hong Kong. What it fears is “contamination,” that once given voice such ideas — or demand for them — would spread like a brushfire into China proper. It wants to keep the democratic genie safely in the bottle.
This sends an important signal to Taiwan at a time when President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is seeking to foster closer relations across the Taiwan Strait.
China is not changing to accommodate Hong Kong, as many believed it would pre-1997, and it is increasingly difficult to imagine it would behave any differently with Taiwan.
Hong Kong legislators and their continuing endeavor to bring into being a fully democratic and just Hong Kong in the face of threats and interference from Beijing should be applauded and fully supported.
As a recipient of Taiwan’s Medigen COVID-19 vaccine, I am unable to return to my homeland, Canada. More precisely, Canada would allow me to return as a technically unvaccinated citizen, subject to quarantine and the expense that entails, but I am forbidden from exiting Canada through an airport, even when I have met the vaccination requirements of my destination country. That means any visit to Canada must become a permanent one. Stepping on Canadian soil carries the consequence of renouncing my life in Taiwan — my job, my home and my friends. The idea of not being allowed to leave your country for
Far from signaling the end, a grim new consensus between Taipei and Washington must now spur a new beginning that ensures Taiwan’s survival. Military leaders in Taipei and Washington now agree there is a growing chance that by the middle of this decade the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership may decide to use its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to attack, or even invade, Taiwan. On October 6, 2021, Taiwan Minister for National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) told members of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, “By 2025, China will bring the cost and attrition to its lowest. It has the capacity now, but it will
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by
The relationship between the US and China promises to do much to define this era, and what could determine this relationship might well be whether the two countries are able to continue to avoid armed conflict over Taiwan. However, with signs that the chances of conflict are growing, the question facing the US and its partners is how to avoid that outcome without sacrificing essential interests. Conceptual framing is always critical to foreign policy. This is no exception. There are problems and there are situations. Problems can in principle be solved. Situations can at best be managed. Taiwan is a situation. Attempts