Taiwanese are experts when it comes to being colonized. Since the Dutch set up a colonial government on the island in 1624, to the arrival of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) after World War II and the intervening periods under the governance of the Spanish, Ming dynasty loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功) — better known as Koxinga — the Qing dynasty and Japan, Taiwan has been subject to outside rule. For centuries, it has been engaged in a struggle for freedom, democracy, sovereignty and human rights, often at grievous cost.
As one of many who have made a contribution to this struggle, it is only natural that I would take an interest in democracy and freedom in other countries and regions. This interest is not about personal gain; it is about conviction.
Compared with the experience of Taiwanese and other colonized peoples, the people who lived Hong Kong under the British were the exception rather than the rule. Hong Kongers had it good. Before the British came, the territory was a poor fishing village. Within three decades of colonial rule, it was transformed into “the jewel of the Orient.”
The British brought not only prosperity, but the rule of law and freedom, although there was still a lack of democracy: the Hong Kong governor was sent from London, not elected by Hong Kongers.
If the British returning Hong Kong to China was just giving the colony back to Beijing in such a way that pleased the Chinese government, but failed to allow Hong Kongers to feel they were no longer colonized or that they were their own masters, what was the point, or value, of the 1997 retrocession?
Then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) tried to reassure Hong Kongers by saying: “The horses will keep running, the dancers will keep dancing” (舞照跳, 馬照跑) — meaning that nothing would change after the handover. Hong Kongers had enjoyed the rule of law, freedom, dancing and horse racing under British rule, and for them to be the masters of the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (SAR), with genuine universal suffrage to elect their governor after retrocession, should have gone without saying. It should have been a matter of course. In other words, they should have been given democracy. What good was retrocession without it?
For many years now, I have been careful not to get too involved with the affairs of foreign governments when people visit from abroad. A joint press conference I held with three “Occupy Central” campaign organizers — Lee Cheuk-yan (李卓人), chairman of protest organizer Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China; Joseph Cheng (鄭宇碩), professor of political science at Hong Kong City University; and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming (朱耀明) — in Taiwan was met with a strong reaction from Hong Kong. There were comments like: “Hong Kong secessionists team up with Taiwanese independence activist,” and people characterized me as: “Taiwan’s Osama bin Laden,” among other things.
I would like to briefly respond to these comments. First, I have always been aware of my place, and have been careful not to meddle in the affairs of other countries. Certainly, I would neither presume nor dare to offer instruction on how the Hong Kong democracy movement should proceed. However, interest in democracy, freedom and human rights in every country is the obligation of all civilized people.
Second, relations between Hong Kong and China are completely different to those between Taiwan and China. The status of Hong Kong was clearly defined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law. It is a SAR of China and China has sovereignty over it. The whole world recognizes this and I completely respect this and would never argue against it.
However, cross-strait relations have, for the past 60 years, been between two countries on equal footing; the Republic of China in Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China. For Hong Kongers to elect their governor through universal suffrage would be akin to the people of Taiwan having universal suffrage to elect the mayor of Taipei — neither situation would have any impact on sovereignty. To support elections of the Hong Kong governor through universal suffrage is not the same thing as being anti-China. Consequently, it makes no sense to conceive of linking Hong Kong secessionists with the Taiwanese pro-independence movement.
Third, I care about Hong Kong’s democratization, but what I say or do in a personal capacity has nothing to do with the Taiwanese independence forces in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The DPP cannot be implicated just because I was at one point the party’s chairman.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the DPP and the vast majority of people involved in politics are scared of Beijing. To my friends in Hong Kong: Please do not accuse me of things that are not true and do not misunderstand the DPP.
Fourth, I am not “Taiwan’s bin Laden.” I am nowhere near his stature. All I have done is be imprisoned for a modest amount of time because of my efforts to secure freedom for the nation. People should not intimidate Hong Kongers with such a comparison.
I was involved in the Kaohsiung Incident and was imprisoned for it. Then I led the “red shirt” anti-corruption protests against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), during which not a single drop of blood was spilled. The red shirt movement was a classic example of a nonviolent civic movement.
The KMT arrested and demonized me for the stand I took against the autocratic rule of Chiang and his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). The DPP smeared me for attacking Chen with the red shirt protests. If the Chinese Communist Party now wants to trash me because of my support for Hong Kong’s democratization, then so be it.
It has always been the case that freedom must be fought for. Democracy in Hong Kong was never going to be there just for the asking.
Shih Ming-te is a former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath