ON Aug. 31, China revealed its political reform plan for Hong Kong — which was really an anti-political reform plan. The plan has met with strong opposition in Hong Kong and attracted a lot of attention in the international media. Despite the close relationship between President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government and Beijing, the government’s response to China’s so-called political reform plan — similar to its response to the alleged secrecry leaks by former Mainland Affairs Council deputy minister Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀) — was slow and inappropriate.
Although he was born in Hong Kong, Ma is indifferent to Hong Kongers’ call for democracy. He did show his concern over the issue while hosting a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) meeting on Tuesday last week, calling for support for the selection of Hong Kong’s chief executive by universal suffrage in 2017. The call for genuine universal suffrage is a significant issue, but Ma chose to express his concern in his capacity as KMT chairman, shying away from a dignified and forthright expression as the president of a nation. This makes one wonder whether he really cares about democracy in Hong Kong.
China’s anti-political reform plan is a reminder to the world that the promise Beijing made during the handover in 1997 — that Hong Kongers would be allowed to administer the territory with a high degree of autonomy — has now been replaced by its statement in June that it has overall jurisdiction over the territory. Those who believed China’s promise that Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years have finally realized that they were fooled. Beijing is acting in a manner diametrically opposed to its pledge to further relax the Basic Law and is now instead rapidly moving toward total control of the territory. If this continues, Hong Kong will soon become just another Chinese city.
Beijing has also stepped up its united front targeting Taiwanese and the Ma administration, using the same sweet talk that it deployed to dupe Hong Kong. Ma even brags about the cross-strait agreements that the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party have signed, seeing them as assurances of peace across the Taiwan Strait.
Leaving distant affairs aside, consider the case of Taiwanese actor Kai Ko (柯震東). Ko was arrested last month in Beijing for allegedly smoking marijuana, but Chinese authorities did not inform their Taiwanese counterparts in a timely manner as required by the cross-strait treaty on mutual legal assistance. Is this not proof that such cross-strait agreements are unreliable?
From China’s claim of overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong to its anti-reform plan, patriotic Chinese netizens have repeatedly satirized democracy activists in Hong Kong, questioning why they did not fight for universal suffrage under British rule. This is just like selling your daughter to a brothel and criticizing her for not being chaste. China ceded Hong Kong to the UK after being defeated in the Opium War, and Hong Kongers became second-class UK citizens.
After the territory’s return to China in 1997, Beijing should have kept its promise that Hong Kongers would be allowed to administer the territory with a higher degree of autonomy to compensate them for their great losses over the past century and more. Instead, Chinese netizens are blaming those who were once ceded to the UK for fighting for universal suffrage now. Are they telling Hong Kongers that since they were second-class citizens under British colonial rule, they should continue being second-class citizens after the handover?
To reinforce its claim of jurisdisction over Hong Kong, Beijing is rejecting calls for real universal suffrage and accuses London of intervening in its internal affairs. This farce is particularly absurd from a historical perspective. The territory was poor when it was ceded to the UK, but it became the “pearl of the orient” under British “colonial oppression.” During the Cold War era, China was isolated by Western democracies, and it had to rely solely on Hong Kong — a major global financial hub — for its financial interactions with the international community.
To be blunt, Hong Kong brought a massive dowry with it when it was returned to China. How can Beijing arrogantly believe that it is nurturing the territory after the signing of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement in 2003?
With the rise of civic awareness in Taiwan aand the regressive political development in Hong Kong, more Hong Kongers have formed a favorable impression of Taiwan today. However, the Ma administration might disappoint them. Ma advocates eventual unification with China, and in 1990 he supported indirect presidential elections rather than direct elections. Judging from such anti-democratic ideals, perhaps both Ma and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) are satisfied with bogus universal suffrage and think that there is no need for real universal suffrage.
Ma’s opposition to referendums exposes his political nature: What he really wants is to see the completion of Hong Kong’s and Taiwan’s unification with China. As Hong Kongers launch street demonstrations against fake universal suffrage, some may have forgotten that Taiwanese also took to the streets against indirect presidential elections in the past. Maybe this is more than a coincidence.
On the same day that China blocked universal suffrage in Hong Kong, Macau held its chief executive election. Backed by Beijing, the sole candidate, Macau Chief Executive Fernando Chui (崔世安), was successfully re-elected by 380 of the 400 votes in what has been called a birdcage election. Still, 8,688 Macanese participated in a referendum organized by the civil sector, and more than 95 percent of them wanted to elect their chief executive through universal suffrage.
The Ma administration has, however, ignored their call, and the MAC immediately congratulated the re-elected Chui — two days ahead of Ma’s talks on Hong Kong’s democracy.
This proves that Ma does not believe that sovereignty belongs to the people. As he continues to oppress Taiwan’s democracy through the KMT’s party-state system, sovereignty is distorted, as it no longer belongs to the people, but to Ma himself. Ma is probably preparing for the next phase, in which sovereignty will belong to Xi.
Translated by Eddy Chang
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS