The launch of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link on Sunday has been welcomed by many Hong Kongers. However, it is also the cause of serious concern for many others. Behind these doubts is the well-founded distrust people have toward Beijing’s intentions.
In normal circumstances, the announcement of a new, rapid, modern rail link would be an entirely positive event. The link promises to significantly cut the travel time between the economic hubs of Guangdong, Shenzhen and Hong Kong, as well as other cities in the “Greater Bay Area.”
It would also give passengers from Hong Kong access to the 25,000km high-speed rail network in China.
Such advantages should provide real economic benefits to business, industry and tourism in Hong Kong and China.
What is not to like?
The crux of the problem is the “colocation arrangement“ between the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.
It includes the creation of a Mainland Port Area, staffed by Chinese immigration and customs officers, within the West Kowloon terminus in Hong Kong. The area is leased to China and falls under its legal jurisdiction. This means that China will, for the first time, have an area within Hong Kong territory in which its laws apply in their entirety and Hong Kong’s Basic Law does not.
The arrangement is supposed to maximize convenience for passengers traveling between the two areas. It is not entirely different from arrangements on other borders, such as the US-Canadian border or for the Eurostar journey between the UK and France.
According to Philip Dykes, chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, the colocation arrangement differs from other border customs agreements in that the Chinese authorities have full jurisdiction: They have the right to detain and remove, not simply refuse entry.
In addition, the laws in the respective territories have significant differences.
For example, Hong Kong police must release suspects after 72 hours if not charged. In China, police can detain people for up to 37 days without formally arresting them. Even after that, they do not have to charge them for months.
After the cross-border kidnapping by Chinese public security agents of then-Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kei (林榮基), this legitimately rings alarm bells. All Chinese authorities need to do now if they want to detain Hong Kongers is to lure them into the West Kowloon terminus.
Aside from these concerns, there are also the longer-term implications of Beijing’s gradual erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and the “one country, two systems” model, which have stepped up a notch under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
It is, unfortunately, implicit in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) assumption of an uninterrupted hold on power that the party has the luxury of playing the long game.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) has said the concerns are unfounded. On Dec. 29 last year, the Hong Kong Government issued a response to concerns over the colocation arrangement, saying it would in no way contravene the Basic Law or the “one country, two systems” model.
Despite these assurances, the degree of distrust in the intentions of Beijing, even over a project that is supposed to bring real economic benefits, is both palpable and well-founded.
Hong Kong operates under the “one country, two systems” model. This model is what Beijing has in mind when it talks of administering Taiwan, should it ever manage to orchestrate a peaceful unification of the two nations.
Beijing’s pernicious erosion of Hong Kong’s presumed guarantees under this system can in no way recommend it to Taiwanese.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers