It is inconceivable how China stepped into an oath-taking controversy in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, prohibiting two popularly elected lawmakers — Yau Wai-ching (游蕙禎) and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung (梁頌恆) — from taking their seats and demanding political allegiance from all lawmakers.
Thousands of people took to the streets on Sunday to protest Beijing’s ruling. Depriving Hong Kongers of the right to self-autonomy, China’s judicial intervention exacerbated two serious problems about its management of sovereignty over Hong Kong.
First, Beijing and its agents in Hong Kong have lost touch with the new political reality. The disqualification fiasco exhibited the narrow Chinese stance on Hong Kong affairs since the Sino-British negotiations over the future of the territory in the early 1980s. At that time, Beijing prohibited Hong Kongers from participating in the bilateral talks and opposed any British proposal to democratize colonial governance and empower community leaders. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders sought to marginalize any Hong Kong prodemocracy force that might arise and challenge the central government in the postcolonial era.
Displaying the remnants of Cold War thinking and China’s obsession with total control, this political tactic served Beijing well in the late 1990s and 2000s. Yet this authoritarian governance has caused serious crises: an incompetent government void of any legitimacy, further marginalization of Hong Kong and escalating tensions with Beijing over universal suffrage.
This harsh, futureless reality is not what Hong Kong’s millennials want. Inspired by Taiwan’s Sunflower protests in March and April 2014, and their direct participation in the months-long “Umbrella movement” in late 2014, millennials are thinking smart about ways to change the confused and hopeless politics around them. Many young, first-time voters embraced the discourse of democratic localism and supported pro-independence candidates like Yau and Leung at the election in September.
Second, nationalist ideology is back in Chinese and Hong Kong politics, justifying the suspension of liberal reforms, the distortion of truth and the manipulation of public opinion. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cracked down on domestic dissent and imposed a Maoist-style leadership, this mode of top-down control has silenced any public discourse of democratization.
Rather than reassessing the feasibility of the “one country, two systems” policy, China only perceives the growing grievances of Hong Kongers not so much as a sign of its own failure of governance as the result of instigation by a handful of pro-independence advocates. As a result, moderate CCP officials in charge of Hong Kong affairs have disappeared into the shadows, while hardliners are emerging. Harmless pro-independence voices like Yau and Leung are now demonized by the official propaganda as a dangerous force that could destabilize the territory and even subvert the mighty Chinese state.
When CCP leaders turn to broader ideological and political frameworks to make sense of the collapse of the “one country, two systems” policy, they see everything as a zero-sum game, worrying that the nation is trapped in a final battle between socialism and liberal democracy. This antagonistic mindset not only polarizes the irreconcilable divide between Hong Kong and Beijing, but also undermines the fragile unity with local governing institutions and business interests.
To reduce further conflicts, China should appeal directly to Hong Kong’s millennials, recognize their frustrations and allow them to take part in the public decisionmaking process. Only then can there be a genuine negotiation between Hong Kongers and the Chinese leadership.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS