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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS