Hong Kong democracy activists Joshua Wong (黃之鋒), Alex Chow (周永康) and Nathan Law (羅冠聰), who in 2014 shot to prominence as leaders of the territory’s “Umbrella movement,” were earlier this month nominated by a dozen US lawmakers for a Nobel Peace Prize.
In their nomination, the lawmakers said they wanted to recognize the trio’s “peaceful efforts to bring political reform” and uphold the territory’s rule of law and human rights.
“Hong Kong’s pro-democracy advocates have made significant contributions to peace by actively seeking to safeguard the future of Hong Kong at precisely the time that Beijing has taken steps to undermine Hong Kong’s long-cherished autonomy,” the bipartisan group told the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in a letter.
The competition is tough, as the Norwegian Nobel Committee receives several hundred nominations annually. However, the nomination itself is significant, as it is not only recognition of the trio’s efforts, but an encouragement to the many who continue the fight for democracy in the former British colony.
Hong Kong in 1997 was returned to Chinese rule as a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. At the time, Beijing said that the territory would be governed under the “one country, two systems” framework and that it would enjoy wide-ranging autonomy.
However, the model has proven a failure, with growing concerns from critics and democracy advocates that liberties and freedoms are being eroded.
China is a signatory to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it still has a long way to go in respecting and implementing the document.
For example, the forced disappearance of five booksellers in 2015 flies in the face of several articles of the declaration, including Article 3, which states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” as well as Article 9, which says: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”
Beijing’s suppression of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movements and the disqualifying of pro-democracy lawmakers from the territory’s Legislative Council also brazenly violate Article 18 of the declaration, which says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and Article 19, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
It is alarming that Beijing and the Hong Kong government have been undermining the territory’s Basic Law by abusing legal interpretations, not to mention manipulating Hong Kong’s judicial system to neutralize pro-democracy campaigners.
In short, Beijing has for half a century broken its pledge to not interfere with Hong Kong’s autonomy.
As Wong said in response to his nomination: “Hong Kong is not left with only three political prisoners — Hong Kong has many political prisoners. It is just that we three are fortunate or incidental to be noticed and be shown concern for by members of the international community.”
Whether or not the trio are awarded the Nobel Prize in December, their nomination will hopefully direct more public and media attention to the dire straits of Hong Kong’s democratic development and, more importantly, let the territory’s pro-democracy activists know that they are not alone in their fight against Beijing’s oppression.
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
With the Taipei mayoral election quickly heating up, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) campaign team has finally started to get serious this month, but a major mudslinging initiative and several sloppy mistakes have drawn a larger wave of public criticism, while sporadic municipal issues continue to crop up, raising concerns about whether the city government’s wheels are coming off. Just a few months ago, Chiang of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was widely expected to win handily in Taipei, traditionally a political stronghold for the KMT and with no major third-party candidates this year. KMT supporters regarded him as a frontrunner
RSS