In June this year, Beijing released a white paper entitled The Practice of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
It spelled the death of the “one country, two systems” policy and a “high degree of autonomy” for Hong Kong.
On Aug. 31, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress announced Beijing’s decisions on universal suffrage in Hong Kong, and the following day Hong Kongers gathered in a protest, prominently displaying the Chinese characters for “civil disobedience” on the main stage.
On the same day, the Taiwan-based New School for Democracy and another 20 Taiwanese civic groups held an international press conference to show their joint support for Hong Kong’s Alliance for True Democracy.
During the event, Hong Kong City University political science professor and convenor of the Alliance for True Democracy Joseph Cheng (鄭宇碩), and University of Hong Kong Faculty of Arts student and Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) secretary-general Alex Chow Yong Kang (周永康) participated via video conferencing.
During the conversation Chow said: “In the future, Hong Kong’s younger generations will never again believe in talk about one country, two systems, a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong or Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, nor will they talk about the return of democracy anymore.”
“What they will talk about is determining their own fate, that the people of Hong Kong will decide their future for themselves,” Chow said.
In other words, Hong Kong’s young people will never again place their faith in Beijing. They will follow their own path and decide their own future, Chow added.
The HKFS and Scholarism, another student activist group, have both been active in Hong Kong’s civic movements pushing for universal suffrage.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tends to exercise more self-control when dealing with students to avoid making itself look bad, but in the end, the party could not help itself from lashing out.
As the members of Scholarism are only high-school students, it would not look good if the CCP attacked them, so instead it chose to come down on members of the HKFS, who are tertiary students, and the CCP-led media have referred to them using derogatory names.
Over the past few days, Chow’s talk of deciding one’s own fate has been attacked by left-wing newspapers as representing “Hong Kong Independence.” Are Hong Kongers really just meant to be slaves of the CCP?
What is more, self-determination is a basic human right as outlined in the UN Charter.
The UK government is preparing for a referendum to decide whether Scotland should be an independent country — due to take place on Thursday.
Like the UK, China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, so how should they be punished for openly acting against the UN Charter?
Civil disobedience is not necessarily the only way to independence, nor will Chow’s talk about Hong Kongers deciding their own future lead to the territory’s independence. It is simply a matter of promoting peaceful and rational non-cooperation.
As well as protesting in the streets, on Sept. 3, a Hong Kong cartoonist who goes by the alias “White Water” posted a cartoon on Facebook showing nine ways that Hong Kongers could boycott Chinese products: not using banks invested in by China, boycotting products from Chinese electronic companies, refusing to use Chinese social media Web sites and software, not buying shares in Chinese companies mainly operating in China but incorporated overseas, not traveling to China, not using China Mobile’s services, not buying Chinese electronic goods, not watching Chinese television programs and not drinking Tsingtao Beer.
Before 1997, some of my friends in Hong Kong had already started refusing to purchase clothing made by the company of businessman and “patriotic monster” Tsang Hin-chi (曾憲梓).
If “patriotic” businesspeople or media outlets in the territory start making unreasonable statements, the boycott could be expanded to include these outlets.
If the CCP continues its oppression in the territory, the sense of a distinctively local Hong Kong identity will only grow stronger among Hong Kongers.
Taiwanese can also start to resist China in their own lives by saying no to the CCP.
For example, they could choose not to purchase products made in China and consider boycotting shares in and products made by Taiwanese companies close to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his confidantes, just as they boycotted HTC’s products when HTC Corp chairwoman Cher Wang (王雪紅) made inappropriate statements. From here, the desinicization can be further expanded.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US