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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS