Hong Kong has been a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1997, and Beijing has promised that it would let the Hong Kong chief executive rule the territory based on the “one country, two systems” policy.
Still, over the past two decades, Beijing has been behind all appointments, from those to the Election Committee, which should head the so-called “universal suffrage,” to chief executives. While it is true that there is “one country,” there are certainly not “two systems.”
Public support for losing candidate former Hong Kong secretary of finance John Tsang (曾俊華) in last week’s chief executive election was in fact twice that of the winning candidate, former Hong Kong chief secretary for administration Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥), but Lam received twice the number of votes that went to Tsang. This shows that whoever is picked by Beijing wins. China’s version of democracy is a distortion.
Hong Kong was leased to Great Britain by the Qing Dynasty in 1841, then witnessed the transfer of Chinese power from the Qing to the Republic of China (ROC), and then again from the ROC to the PRC.
The switch from the imperial system to right-wing and then left-wing authoritarian rule was a sharp contrast to British rule of law. Despite the absence of a democratic system, the territory used to enjoy a high degree of freedom, but following the handover to China, the “Pearl of the Orient” no longer shines with the same luster.
China claims to be Hong Kong’s “birth mother,” which was forced by a great power and lured by the gains to lease it to its “foster mother,” Great Britain. China used nationalist sentiment to regain the territory, but deep down, Beijing has been jealous of Hong Kong’s development under the rule of another nation.
As the PRC has become more developed, wealthier and stronger, it has insisted on oppressing the territory just to force it to bow its head.
The practical implementation of “one country, two systems” shows that China is saying one thing, but doing another. Calling it “two systems” is a misnomer.
Whether Hong Kongers like it or not, Beijing picked Lam as chief executive. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “democracy with Chinese characteristics” are uniquely Chinese definitions that are very different from anyone else’s.
Hong Kong’s experience since 1997 is similar to Taiwan’s experience after 1945, because for both, any hope for the “motherland” has become a nightmare.
Taiwan was ceded to Japan, while Hong Kong was leased to Great Britain, but nevertheless, they were both colonized. Both Great Britain and Japan modernized early on, and both follow the rule of law. Both British and Japanese colonial rule stood in sharp contrast to Chinese rule. Moreover, national awareness raised people’s hopes of becoming a modern nation, and independence has become an option.
Only by knowing China will it be possible to understand it, and having been ruled by China creates an even stronger wish to cast off the “motherland.”
In their confusion, Taiwanese once welcomed the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government when it arrived from China, but the nightmare of the 228 Incident in 1947 woke Taiwanese up and they began attempting to build a free and democratic nation.
For Hong Kongers, the “1997 dream” has been dashed, as they have finally come to realize that they should never expect the Chinese Communist Party to offer them freedom and democracy.
A nation should be a shared community of free individuals. Taiwanese have struggled for more than half a century, while Hong Kongers have just started their quest of for an identity of their own.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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