Anyone with an understanding of Hong Kong’s politics knows that on paper the highest official of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the territoriy’s chief executive, but in practice the top authorities are the director of China’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and officials in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Zhongnanhai. It is Beijing that calls the shots.
This is the reason Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) was unmoved throughout last year’s student-led protests: He could not make a decision and Beijing does not allow political reform. The situation in Hong Kong is the future nightmare of Taiwan. Recent events have caused alarm among Taiwanese who feel the nation will follow Hong Kong.
When China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) discussed the establishment of casinos in Kinmen during a recent meeting with Mainland Affairs Council Minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) in Kinmen County, he took the tone of a Beijing Mandarin and instructed Hsia that Kinmen should walk the straight and narrow, and refrain from developing a gambling industry lest the three small links be closed.
When Hsia said Taiwanese were suspicious of and unhappy with China’s National Security Law, Zhang broke off their conversation, saying: “For the time being, [any discussion of] this case ends here.”
Zhang’s actions should be a warning to Taiwan. Zhang does not have moral concerns about establishing casinos — after all, gambling is a major industry in Macau. Zhang’s statement about gambling in Kinmen has nothing to do with moral scruples, he has something else in mind.
However, the establishment of casinos in Kinmen is an internal matter for Taiwan that should be decided by the Kinmen County Government and the legislature in Taipei. Zhang has nothing to do with it and his actions violate the fundamental spirit of mutual respect for the separate rule of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
When Hsia voiced Taiwanese concerns over China’s laws, it was normal behavior for an official in a democracy to convey public opinion; not doing so would be a dereliction of duty. Clearly Zhang stopped the exchange of opinions on this issue because he feels that “this is how it is, we have made the decision and you just have to learn to live with that.” This is the attitude of a superior correcting a subordinate.
China feels it has done a good job compromising and offering Taiwan economic benefits in cross-strait agreements, that it has reached the public’s hearts in its unification preparations and that Taiwanese therefore should support China. The reality is the exact opposite: Many Taiwanese are increasingly unhappy with Beijing and opinion polls show that Taiwanese feel distant from China.
China ignores cross-strait differences in the political, economic and social systems. It is incapable of understanding that values such as liberty, human rights, equality and the rule of law differ between the two sides.
Perhaps Zhang is a straight shooter and a man of action in Beijing official circles, but cross-strait affairs are sensitive, and he needs to be cautious and respectful.
If Chinese officials visiting Taiwan behave as if they were here on provincial tours and make irresponsible remarks about Taiwanese affairs, the nation may soon be ready for its own version of the Hong Kong nightmare.
There has been much catastrophizing in Taiwan recently about America becoming more unreliable as a bulwark against Chinese pressure. Some of this has been sparked by debates in Washington about whether the United States should defend Taiwan in event of conflict. There also were understandable anxieties about whether President Trump would sacrifice Taiwan’s interests for a trade deal when he sat down with President Xi (習近平) in late October. On top of that, Taiwan’s opposition political leaders have sought to score political points by attacking the Lai (賴清德) administration for mishandling relations with the United States. Part of this budding anxiety
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
Tokyo-Beijing relations have been rapidly deteriorating over the past two weeks as China tries to punish Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks about Taiwan earlier this month, and the off-ramp to this conflict is yet to be seen. Takaichi saying that a “Taiwan contingency” could cause a “situation threatening Japan’s survival” — which would allow Japan to act in self-defense — has drawn Beijing’s ire and sparked retaliatory measures. Her remark did not gain public attention until Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) made an apparent threat to behead her. The two sides lodged protests against each
On Nov. 8, newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and Vice Chairman Chi Lin-len (季麟連) attended a memorial for White Terror era victims, during which convicted Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spies such as Wu Shi (吳石) were also honored. Cheng’s participation in the ceremony, which she said was part of her efforts to promote cross-strait reconciliation, has trapped herself and her party into the KMT’s dark past, and risks putting the party back on its old disastrous road. Wu, a lieutenant general who was the Ministry of National Defense’s deputy chief of the general staff, was recruited
RSS