The Chinese Communist Party again showed that it cannot be trusted by attempting to crack down on pro-democracy demonstrators occupying streets in central Hong Kong, as it brutally rejected their call for true universal suffrage in direct elections for the special administrative region’s next chief executive.
Since China’s takeover of Hong Kong in 1997, pro-democracy advocates in the territory have been campaigning for full suffrage and direct elections for their chief executive. Thus far the chief executive has been elected indirectly by the Legislative Council. Although Beijing promised universal suffrage in 2017, it now insists that all candidates must be approved by a nominating committee, leading many Hong Kong residents to call Beijing’s proposed election format “inauthentic,” since voters will only be allowed to choose from candidates approved by the Chinese government.
Moreover, in June, Beijing released a “white paper” on its “one country, two systems” framework that stressed that Hong Kong will only enjoy as much autonomy as the Chinese government grants it.
Discontent with Beijing’s interference in Hong Kong’s politics led to strikes by tens of thousands of university students in the territory last week, as well as sparking the ongoing occupation of streets and paralysis of Central district.
Although Hong Kongers’ demands for an authentic and free election for the territory’s top administrative official would be deemed reasonable in any democracy, the Hong Kong and Beijing governments have responded to them with crackdowns by police officers using pepper spray, tear gas and violence, resulting in the injury and illegal detention of protesters.
Hong Kongers are only the latest victims of the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party regime.
Tibetans and Uighurs living under Chinese have long suffered from the repression of their religions, culture and freedom, despite the party’s promises to protect freedom of religion and the protection afforded to the cultures of China’s minority ethnic groups by the Chinese constitution, as well as by the 17-Point Peace Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet Beijing signed with the Tibetan authorities upon its invasion and occupation of Tibet.
Meanwhile, perhaps millions more Han Chinese are also falling victim to corruption, forced evictions and demolitions, and damage to the environment.
Over the past decade, Tibetans living in exile in Taiwan have warned of the dangers of Chinese rule, and now, Hong Kongers have joined their calls. At an event to support the Hong Kong demonstrators held at Liberty Square in Taipei, several tearful Hong Kong expatriates spoke about their suffering and warned Taiwanese not to trust Beijing. Unfortunately, government officials in Taipei do not seem to be alert to the situation in Hong Kong.
Minister of the Interior Chen Wei-zen (陳威仁) dismissed the protests as Hong Kong’s business and, though voicing support for democracy in the territory, both President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) have reacted rather nonchalantly.
Such reactions may be appropriate if the chaos happens in a far away place that has nothing to do with Taiwan. However, government officials should realize that the dilemma is occurring in Hong Kong and has been created by Beijing, which has never given up its ambition to “retake” Taiwan.
More importantly, the “one country, two systems” framework — originally designed for Taiwan — is not working in Hong Kong.
It is time for a the government to be responsible and learn from the developments in Hong Kong, and reflect on its China-leaning policies to prevent Taiwan from being dragged into the same predicament.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS