Can Taiwan be an exemplar for a Hong Kong that seems to be fighting an authoritarian regime as the Taiwanese did? Circumstances do not allow for too much optimism, especially after the Hong Kong High Court on Tuesday disqualified two pro-independence lawmakers-elect from taking office.
When it comes to highlighting the similarities between pre-democracy Taiwan and Hong Kong under Chinese rule, there are parallels — such as facing an authoritarian regime and trying to break away from the monolithic narrative of “Chineseness.”
Taiwan had held limited elections before the lifting of martial law in 1987 and Hong Kong has a restricted democracy now.
The current row over the Legislative Council’s oath-taking procedures arise from the suppressed political environment in Hong Kong, echoing the cases of deliberate tampering with oath-taking by democratically elected representatives in Taiwan.
However, the historic and political situation in the two differs in ways that defy simple applications of the Taiwanese model, a reality that became more apparent after the intervention of Beijing’s National People’s Congress in Hong Kong’s legislative procedures and, more so, the High Court’s ruling.
When National Assembly representatives and Legislative Yuan members started to act against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime’s demand for a pledge of allegiance, they did so against a political background that had already been showing cracks.
More chaotic scuffles and open defiance were seen following the lifting of martial law in 1987. Several non-KMT National Assembly representatives in February 1990 refused to face the Republic of China (ROC) flag and the picture of ROC founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) while taking their oaths, prompting KMT representatives to request a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices.
The council which ruled that those who “failed or deliberately took the oath in a way not compliant to the regulations” were not allowed to exercise the powers granted by the post.
The student movement that was later called the Wild Lily Student Movement voiced the public’s annoyance against the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan seats still being largely occupied by those who arrived in Taiwan with the KMT regime in 1949.
The grand justices’ constitutional interpretation was never upended, but the following social upheavals and developments made it irrelevant.
The ROC symbolism was — and is — still cherished by some, but those who were for and against it knew that they were keeping a dynamic equilibrium on the issue in a democratic arena.
However, the decision made by Hong Kong’s High Court, which toed the line taken by the ruling from the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) — unlike Taiwan’s path of democratization — might signify an opposite turn, leading away from full democracy.
Beijing has not only the final, but an arbitrary say in Hong Kong’s political system. The NPC’s intervention set a bad precedent and created worries in the territory that could easily turn into self censorship.
Unlike the KMT regime, an “emigre regime” with nowhere left to run, Beijing easily wields its power in Hong Kong like an emperor manipulating his proxies.
Unless Beijing is to abandon the fig leaf of the “one country, two systems” model, the court’s decision is not yet final, as the two lawmakers are appealing it and there are efforts to procedurally obstruct authorities from announcing a by-election. However, a by-election would give Hong Kong voters a chance to demonstrate their defiance of Beijing by voting for other pro-democracy activists.
Elections make a difference not only through casting ballots, but also through spreading ideas and exchanging views and information, and Taiwan’s experience in this case speaks louder than words.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath