In a speech on Jan. 2 marking the 40th anniversary of China’s 1979 “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) said that he wants to “explore a Taiwanese version of one country, two systems.”
As a Hong Konger, I am more familiar with the “one country, two systems” policy than anyone, and it could even be said that it has made an indelible impression on me.
In case the “one country, two systems” model is going to be implemented in Taiwan, it would be a good idea to listen to the opinions of those who have already been through this, and then sit down with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials to engage in some serious “exploration” of the changes society would go through.
Here are a few issues that would be worth exploring:
First, would there also be a basic law for Taiwan, like the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, that would replace the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution and a guarantee that Taiwan would be left unchanged for 50 years?
Second, would there be “gradual and progressive” elections in Taiwan and would the Legislative Yuan, just like Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, be based on “functional constituencies” giving permanent power and influence to minority groups?
Third, would candidates for a chief executive of Taiwan be screened and appointed by the CCP?
Fourth, would the transfer of government power in Taiwan also be simply a “change of flag, with everything else to remain unchanged”?
Fifth, would freedom of speech continue to include the right to utter the words “Taiwanese independence” and would book publishers be kidnapped?
Sixth, would people who advocate Taiwanese independence be deprived of their right to contest elections and organize demonstrations?
Seventh, would lawmakers be thrown out by the speaker if they protest during a legislative session?
Eighth, would Taiwan enact a new national security law, a new national flag law and a new national anthem law?
Ninth, when a few years have passed, would Taiwanese suddenly be told by Chinese leadership that “one country” overrides “two systems”?
Tenth, would Taiwanese be warned by the CCP leadership after a few years that your “two systems” could be canceled at any time?
Eleventh, would the national coffers be raided, with Taiwan forced to participate in the massive money giveaway that is the Belt and Road Initiative?
Twelfth, would Taiwan be ordered to squander taxpayers’ hard-earned money on white elephant projects, such as a bridge connecting Xiamen, Kinmen and Taipei — a project that would be extremely costly to build and maintain, and out of proportion to its usefulness?
Thirteenth, would Taiwan’s friends among US and Japanese politicians continue to have free access to Taiwan?
If these questions were explored with CCP officials, they would not hesitate to guarantee that none of these things would come to pass. As this is the case, there really is no need to explore these things. Right?
Kot Chun is a retired teacher and author in Hong Kong.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
RSS