On June 29, the top story on the Liberty Times’ front page was a report on a survey of Hong Kongers’ satisfaction with Chinese rule 14 years on. I am not going to comment on the contents of the article other than to say that it is rare to see a Taiwanese mainstream media outlet pay earnest attention to the developments in Hong Kong.
For various reasons, the rising strength of China has been a cause of both enthusiasm and worry for the people of Taiwan.
It has also set off a variety of discussions and expressions of concern.
What I find most surprising, however, is that Taiwanese do not understand, nor do they seem to have any interest in understanding, the situation in Hong Kong.
In January, veteran Hong Kong democracy activist Szeto Wah (司徒華) passed away. The news shook Hong Kong, and even made it into the pages of the New York Times. Still, I wonder how many Taiwanese know who Wah was?
Taiwanese in general are currently paying a lot of attention to the fact that Taiwanese universities are opening up to students from China, and many media outlets are busy interviewing Chinese students.
However, there are also many exchange students from Hong Kong in Taiwan.
How many of these media outlets are interviewing those students, asking for their opinions on the “one country, two systems” policy, or asking them about the effects of an increasingly strong China on Hong Kong?
I find this Taiwanese neglect of and indifference to Hong Kong bizarre.
In my view, Hong Kong’s development over the past 20 years provides the best reference and the best indicators for Taiwan as it tries to address its concerns about China’s growing strength.
The general view is that the so-called “one country, two systems” policy was proposed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) as a way of solving the Hong Kong issue. As far as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was concerned, however, the real target of this policy was Taiwan.
The proposition and implementation of the policy in Hong Kong was merely an experiment with a very simple goal: To practice for the takeover of Taiwan.
Maybe it could be said that the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong has been an utter failure and that China’s unification strategy has had the opposite effect of what was intended.
That, however, is not a reason to neglect Hong Kong’s development.
First, everything the CCP has done in Hong Kong over the past 20 years has in fact been an experiment in preparation for how to deal with Taiwan. This means that Hong Kong offers a ready-made blueprint as we try to understand what concrete measures the CCP will take when dealing with Taiwan once the two sides initiate political, or even unification, talks. What reasons could Taiwan possibly have for neglecting to study Hong Kong’s development and recent history?
Second, the “one country, two systems” policy may appear to be a failure, but looked at from another perspective, it has been successful — Hong Kong is gradually becoming more similar to the Chinese mainland, as press freedom is restricted through self-censorship and the rights of the judiciary become increasingly circumscribed.
The people of Hong Kong know better than anyone else how all these changes are taking place.
This raises the question of whether Taiwan should not be more active in inviting representatives of all walks of life from Hong Kong to give detailed accounts of their experiences to the Taiwanese.
Third, Hong Kong also offers the best window on developments in China, not only politically speaking, but also economically speaking. Because it is about to become the experimental center for offshore business using the Chinese currency, Hong Kong will become the crucial observation point for Chinese capital flows and economic trends.
Over the past two decades, Hong Kong has experienced the impact of independent Chinese travelers and the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement — which is similar to Taiwan’s Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. It is now Taiwan’s turn to deal with these same issues.
At a time when both Taiwan’s leaders and the general public are feeling uneasy, they forget that there is an excellent nearby example whose experience they can learn from — Hong Kong.
The shortsightedness was and is astonishing.
Wang Dan is a visiting assistant professor at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS