No one could have predicted that the week-long pro-democracy strike by thousands of Hong Kong university and high-school students in September would escalate into the two-month-long “Umbrella movement,” attracting people from all walks of life to occupy several major districts of the territory.
This is undoubtedly the most serious political crisis that the territory has faced since 1997.
The responses to the protesters, both by Hong Kong and mainland Chinese officials, and by different segments of society, have revealed a heavily politicized situation and radically transformed the territory in ways that had been previously unimaginable.
Excessive violence and brutality summarizes the Hong Kong government’s response to a peaceful, passionate and networked demonstration.
By comparison, an outpouring of public support and sympathy for the Occupy Central movement was echoed globally and symbolized a youthful uprising against the “status quo.”
While many observers have applauded the spontaneity of the Umbrella movement, it is important to also pay attention to the social and moral psychology of such protest movements that demand genuine democracy in the 2017 elections of the territory’s chief executive and lawmakers.
Burmese democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi once said: “It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
Her remarks are relevant for the territory where Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s (梁振英) administration is dismantling the rule of law and depriving the people of their civil rights.
When the government employed court orders to clear the occupied protest sites, it pitted the police against peaceful protesters and employed security measures to resolve political problems that required dialogue and compromise instead.
Hong Kong’s leaders have refused to resolve the current crisis peacefully. Instead, they have divided society by instilling hatred and fear among the public, and demonizing the demonstrators.
On many occasions, the officials ridiculed the concept of universal suffrage and treated the people of Hong Kong as a faceless mass to be domesticated.
HSBC Holdings board member Laura Cha (查史美倫), a non-official member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong and chairperson of the Preparatory Task Force on the Financial Services Development Council and former vice chairwoman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, embodied such anti-democratic sentiments among the elites.
She justified the disenfranchisement of Hong Kongers by comparing them to freed African-American slaves, suggesting they should endure a century of authoritarian rule before getting their electoral rights. These remarks only provoked widespread public anger and caused irreconcilable conflict.
Aung San Suu Kyi reminded her followers of the dangers of authoritarianism two decades ago, saying: “Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day.”
After witnessing the police’s violent attacks on the demonstrators, Hong Kongers have realized that freedom from fear is a precondition for democratic change. By expressing their desire for genuine democracy, they are determined to free themselves from police brutality, torture and abuse.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history and codirector of Global Asia Studies at Pace University in New York.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with