The recent demonstrations in Hong Kong against the introduction of national “patriotism” classes and the Legislative Council elections held on Sept. 9, can be compared with Taiwan’s present political predicament.
Hong Kong’s objections to the “patriotism” classes result from a clash of universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which were — in part — left behind by the British and the rule of individual discretion and authoritarianism as introduced by the Chinese.
Meanwhile, democratic progress in Taiwan is currently being restricted by the same brand of Chinese authoritarian government. Democracy under the rule of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is increasingly a sham. The reality is a government that has monopolized all five administrative branches. People go to the ostensibly democratic polls blind to the serious internal problems that afflict the nation and elections are regularly won by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) because of their control of major assets, the judiciary and the media.
The transition of political power that occurred in 2000 was purely superficial in nature. The mechanisms of state remained the same and old laws were left untouched. Things are no more just than they were before. Outside observers cannot see the failings of Taiwan’s democracy and the Taiwanese themselves are angered by what it has morphed into: They do not dare seize the initiative and push for real, meaningful reform.
In the past, Hong Kongers could not understand why the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) insisted on taking to the streets about every other issue. Often they would look on in consternation as lawmakers came to blows in our legislature. Now, more people in Hong Kong are out on the streets protesting than there ever were in Taiwan. Back in 1997, voters in Hong Kong had little time for Leung Kwok-hung’s (梁國雄) radicalism and he was lucky to get elected to the Legislative Council in 2004. In this election, his popularity was such that not only was his own seat assured, but he was also able to help some of his fellow candidates rally votes in their constituencies.
Twenty years ago, the largest pro-democracy party in Hong Kong, the Democratic Party, was advocating moderate rationalism, but it was frustrated in Sunday’s election and their electoral support fell by 20 percent in the five direct election constituencies. Over the last several years, young people in Hong Kong have become increasingly politicized and radicalized. The reason for this is that Hong Kong is becoming more like China every day and it is the younger generation — whose futures this will affect most — who are to be the greatest victims of this process.
Two years ago, the Democratic Party engaged in secretive meetings with Beijing that resulted in compromises on political reform, resulting in the addition of five additional seats in the legislature for geographic constituencies, with representatives elected through universal suffrage and five super district councilor seats also elected through universal suffrage. The party found it difficult to answer critics who accused it of having sold out Hong Kong’s democracy. It was also accused of having made excessive concessions to the Hong Kong government on other public policy issues — especially those concerning the immediate interests of the middle and lower classes as well as the territory’s youth — and of concentrating too much on talks with the Chinese communists and with the Hong Kong government. It was also accused of distancing itself from the more radical elements of the pro-democracy movement. Seen to be shunning those it should have been supporting, much of the youth vote has discarded the party.
Neither did the older generation of pan-democracy camp members — with their Greater China mindset — want to have anything to do with the rise of the Hong Kong City-State Autonomy Movement (HKAM) or of the increasingly influential calls for localization, fearing that they would be tarred with the brush of Hong Kong independence. This explains how it was that high school students were more active in response to the national education issue and the fact that they seem to be putting sovereignty over human rights.
Since Ma secured his second term in office, he has backtracked on a number of issues and the public’s frustration with him has reached new levels. Members of his circle have been involved in a string of screw-ups, corruption scandals and highly irregular judicial manipulation and he has sided with China over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台).
On the Diaoyutais, he has made Taiwan’s situation more precarious. One hopes that politicians in the pan-green camp will do something about this, because if they do not, their supporters will start to lose faith in them. When China occupies Taiwan, the younger generation will complain that we did not do enough.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS