University students in Hong Kong on Monday began a week-long boycott of classes to show Beijing their resolve to secure true universal suffrage for the territory. The Hong Kong student movement and Taiwan’s Sunflower movement will both become major milestones in Chinese-speaking democracy.
The Hong Kong boycott aims to counter colonialist control and screening of candidates for the territory’s chief executive. Although sovereignty of the former British colony was handed over in 1997, China has continued the colonial system of governance.
The British set up several functional constituencies in the Legislative Council so that the business world and professional groups could participate in the system of representative democracy. The difference is that when the British were in control, these constituencies were limited to business and professional groups, but under Beijing, they include the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), pro-Beijing establishment factions and tycoons, all of whom wield control over government policy. The public continues to have limited influence over the political process. This is why the students say they oppose colonialism.
Prior to 1997, the CCP gave assurances that it would maintain a “one country, two systems” administration in Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy, democratic governance and no change to the system for 50 years. However, it has reneged on these promises.
The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Aug. 31 released its resolution on Hong Kong’s political reform, putting an end to hopes for democratic universal suffrage and causing many democracy activists in the territory to lose all faith in China. When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met a business delegation headed by former Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) on Monday, he confirmed that Beijing would not budge.
There are differences between the student movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The former is trying to secure political freedoms, while the latter is opposed to the government’s handling of an economic issue, namely the lack of transparency in negotiations over the cross-strait service trade agreement. However, at the core of both lies a distrust of China, and both demonstrate that Beijing’s “one China, two systems” formula is bankrupt for Hong Kongers and Taiwanese alike.
Civil society in both Taiwan and Hong Kong is awakening, and the two are learning from each other as they seek ways to counter Beijing’s political and economic machinations. The international community is keenly observing the unfolding situation, which is also facilitating the growth of a fledgling democracy movement in China proper.
The Chinese Communist Party regime relies on totalitarian rule. It distrusts and fears its own people, and certainly panics at the thought of a democracy movement catching hold in China. It sees anyone who seeks more rights as an enemy with separatist or independence designs.
China is already making preparations to counter what it imagines are separatist elements within Hong Kong. Its approach could not be more different from the British government’s handling of Scotland’s desire for an independence referendum.
If Beijing wants to win back trust, it could do worse than learn from the British government’s approach toward Scotland. It should have the confidence to allow Hong Kongers greater democratic rights and truly implement “one country, two systems.” Hong Kong would be a democratic trial run for China proper, which could perhaps not only regain the trust of the territory’s residents, but also win the goodwill of the Taiwanese.
Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) set China on the road to economic liberalization. Now would be the time for his heirs to embrace more political freedoms.
However, given Xi’s actions since taking office, punters can probably safely bet on the opposite.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS