The recent Freedom in the World survey released by Freedom House shows that Hong Kong’s political freedom ranking has dropped. As the Chinese Communist Party’s intervention is becoming increasingly severe, Hong Kong’s political climate is facing an uncertain future.
Prior to last year’s Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong, the council banned some members of the local pro-independence factions from registering as candidates, and after the elections, two elected members were disqualified because their oaths of allegiance were said to be unlawful.
Furthermore, Causeway Bay Books owner Lam Wing-kei (林榮基) and Chinese tycoon Xiao Jianhua (肖建華) were taken to China for interrogation, which further damaged residents’ personal freedoms and freedom of expression, and posed a threat to the territory’s academic freedom and the superiority of its universities.
Hong Kong academia used to enjoy a good reputation. In last year’s QS University Rankings – Asia released by the higher education analysis company Quacquarelli Symonds, the National University of Singapore topped the list, but was followed by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in second place and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in fourth, while the City University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong were ranked seventh and eighth, respectively.
Hong Kong’s advantage is due to high salaries, which allows schools to attract instructors; its elite education with an enrollment rate of less than 20 percent; and academic freedom.
Academia in Hong Kong has been seen as a paradise for Chinese studies that presents no taboos in areas such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 democracy movement and Tiananmen Square protests.
However, the halcyon days of academic freedom seem to have passed. In 2014, British medical scientist Peter Mathieson was appointed president of HKU. He has gone through several incidents, such as HKU students’ participation in the “Umbrella movement,” controversy over the selection of HKU pro-vice-chancellor and an information leak from the HKU council. The pro-Beijing camp was dissatisfied with his liberal position.
Earlier this month, he announced his resignation and his new position as president of the University of Edinburgh, where his salary is estimated to be half of what he was paid at HKU. This is a major warning sign of receding academic freedom in Hong Kong.
Its declining freedom seems to have caused a brain drain. In 2006, there were only 481 immigrants from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This number remained low for seven years. In 2014 — the year of the “Umbrella movement” — 697 people emigrated to Taiwan from Hong Kong and Macau. In 2015, that number increased to 891 and last year it increased further to 1,273 people. This is second only to the number of immigrants from the US and Australia, and the highest number since 1998. In another few years, it might even exceed the record year of 1997.
The election of Hong Kong’s chief executive is a power game controlled by Beijing. If Hong Kongers want to obtain democratic rights, emigrating to another nation might be more feasible than attempting to promote political reform. The territory’s political backsliding might also force financial elites and academics to move abroad.
While Taiwan is facing problems like an aging population and a low birthrate, the authorities should not only protect the safety of dissidents, but also consider how to attract talented people from Hong Kong to enhance freedom and democracy and bolster science and technology.
Lin Thung-hong is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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