The Book Hong Kong Nationalism, published by the Hong Kong University Student Union publication Undergrad in 2013, is in hot demand in the territory after Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) used his new year’s policy address to direct harsh criticism at the Undergrad for promoting Hong Kong independence. Leung’s comments have set off another wave of debate about independence.
In my paper “What does it mean to be a Hong Konger?” published in 2000, I said that since identifying as a Hong Konger is an act that carries political significance, it could potentially lead to the development of Hong Kong nationalism, and I therefore defined such identification as proto-nationalism.
After the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the territory has maintained a different set of laws, a different education system, a different currency and a different market from China — of which the milk powder problem in Hong Kong is a good example — and this has stopped residents from developing the same national identity as people on the mainland.
However, as a result of the political environment — and in stark contrast to the situation in Taiwan — the further politicization of the local Hong Kong identity into a clear Hong Kong nationalism has not been very quick following the handover.
Still, the idea of Hong Kong independence does exist in Hong Kong society. A study that I conducted with Hong Kong University between 2005 and 2007 showed that if given the choice, one-quarter of respondents in Hong Kong would support the view that “Hong Kong should be independent.”
The problems with political reform in Hong Kong and the conflict between China and Hong Kong that has developed over the past few years have resulted in a surge in local Hong Kong awareness and a rising Hong Kong-centered — and even pro-independence — discourse.
Good examples of these developments are Hong Kong Nationalism as well as Undergrad’s February 2014 issue, “The Hong Kong nation deciding its own fate” and the September 2014 issue, “Democracy and Independence for Hong Kong,” which raise the Hong Kong-centered discourse to the level of political autonomy for Hong Kong, which in effect would be tantamount to Hong Kong independence.
One of the main reasons that the Hong Kong independence discourse has spread among young people is their lack of trust in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the most immediate factor is their disappointment in the Beijing-directed political reform and policy on universal suffrage. The 2007 study showed that 33 percent of respondents felt that if China continued to be controlled by the CCP, that would result in stronger support for independence throughout Hong Kong society.
The odd thing is that Beijing, which is the strongest opponent to such independence, becomes an important source for the rise in Hong Kong independence awareness. Apart from this, related surveys in Taiwan conducted in 2007 and 2013 also show that if the CCP, which is strongly opposed to democracy, continues to rule China, that would become one of the main reasons Taiwanese would not want to become “Chinese” or why they would refuse unification with China.
The “Umbrella revolution” could do nothing to shake the decision reached by the Chinese National People’s Congress rejecting universal suffrage in Hong Kong, which only goes to show that Beijing has no intention of changing its longtime focus on power above all. As universal suffrage in Hong Kong has reached a dead end, it is not difficult to foresee that if a similar survey were conducted today, it would be likely that support for independence would be shown to have increased sharply.
Today, Taiwanese independence awareness and opposition to unification with China has become a natural component in the minds of the young generation. It will be interesting to see whether the young people of Hong Kong will follow in the footsteps of the Taiwan independence movement and develop a Hong Kong independence awareness and Hong Kong nationalism.
John Lim is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History and an adjunct associate professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS