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.
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
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
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
RSS