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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS