The pro-democracy movements in Taiwan and Hong Kong have in the past followed different routes, but recent events in Hong Kong suggest there has been a degree of confluence in their trajectories.
For the past 10 or so days, students have staged hunger strikes to protest plans by the Hong Kong government to introduce Chinese patriotism classes in schools, which people suspect are an attempt to brainwash schoolchildren. Tens of thousands of people gathered on the streets of Hong Kong to protest against the planned curriculum changes and eventually succeeded in getting the government to announce it would withdraw plans to introduce the new classes within the next three years. This was a victory for the people of Hong Kong, who stood up for their rights.
This brings to mind the Wild Lilies Student Movement (野百合學運) of 1990, when more than 6,000 students staged a hunger strike in front of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, calling for the disbanding of the National Assembly, the abolition of the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員戡亂時期臨時條款), the holding of a state affairs meeting and the setting of a timetable for political and economic reforms. Then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) met their demands and put Taiwan on the path to democratic reform.
On Sunday, Hong Kong had its Legislative Council elections. The enthusiastic protests against the patriotism classes failed to translate into the predicted legislative seat gains for the pro-democracy parties, despite a turnout rate of 53 percent. Hobbled by ill-advised tactical voting and infighting, the pan-democracy camp managed to win only 18 seats, while the pro-China, pan-establishment camp got 17. Although the pan-democracy camp’s haul fell short of predictions, it retained more than a third of the seats and will have the right of veto in the new legislative session. Nevertheless, Democratic Party Chairman Albert Ho (何俊仁) fell on his sword to take responsibility for the party’s poor showing.
The political situation in Hong Kong has parallels with that in Taiwan. Both are under threat by China’s “one country, two systems” idea and both are under pressure from Beijing. The pro-China, or pro-establishment camp is like the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Taiwan, with the advantage in funding and resources. Taiwanese would have been only too familiar with scenes during Sunday’s election of voters being bused to voting stations, instructions on how best to vote tactically and large adverts splashed across Hong Kong newspapers on election day calling on people to vote for “stability.” The pan-democracy parties in Hong Kong lack the pro-establishment camp’s resources and ability to organize tactical voting, and rely on ideas and their transmission to attract votes, much like the Democratic Progressive Party here. We have more experience of party politics than Hong Kong, where it is still in its early stages and has a long way to go. It can learn from the experience of Taiwan’s democratic movement.
Some people have likened Taiwan’s situation now to that of Hong Kong in 1997, when the former British colony was handed back to China. At that point, China started to pervade all levels of Hong Kong’s politics and society. There are fears that Taiwan is becoming increasingly like Hong Kong in this regard. Now, as the governing and opposition parties work out how best to deal with China and formulate their China policies, Hong Kong is a useful reference. Taiwan and Hong Kong can learn a lot from each other. And for us, this starts with monitoring the mass school strikes organized by the student movement.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his