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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS