On Tuesday, three prominent Hong Kong democracy advocates attended a forum at National Chengchi University to share their experiences of living under China’s “one country, two systems” model.
University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai (戴耀廷), sociologist Chan Kin-man (陳健民) and retired pastor Chu Yiu-ming (朱耀明), known as the “Occupy Central Three,” are facing several years in jail for opposing the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) governance of the territory, as they are accused of inciting the 2014 pro-democracy movement.
At the forum, one of the trio called the “one country, two systems” model a “joke,” but nobody in the room laughed.
The model has once more been thrust to the forefront of political debate in Taiwan after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) Jan. 2 address reiterated implementing it in Taiwan.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) immediately pushed back at the idea that it could ever be used in Taiwan, or that the nation could be unified with China at all.
The vast majority of Taiwanese do not identify exclusively as Chinese, nor do they favor the idea of unification. The CCP’s insistence on unification is based on a delusional reading of history and of current public sentiment. The problem is that the CCP’s delusion is backed up by an increasingly capable and competent military.
It is informative to listen to the firsthand experiences of those living under the system. Nevertheless, it is also important to bear in mind that, despite the obvious similarities between Hong Kong and Taiwan regarding the CCP’s favored vision of the future, there is one major difference.
Tai spoke of how he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never thought he would be thrown in jail for expressing his ideas about democracy. He said he thought that it was important to maintain pressure on the CCP, otherwise the party would continue to curb democratic freedoms.
Tai drew a parallel between the respective predicaments of Hong Kongers and Taiwanese, both of whom are increasingly endangered by the CCP’s suppression.
Chan said that Hong Kong is still waiting for the implementation of universal suffrage, there has fundamentally never been “two systems” in Hong Kong and it has essentially been run as part of China ever since the 1997 handover from Britain.
Hong Kong was not democratic under British colonial rule, at least in part due to opposition from the CCP to any changes to the political system by the British government. Now, the struggle for a simple civil right, such as the right to vote, has resulted in law-abiding academics and pastors facing years in jail. Any hopes for democratic development under a “one country, two systems” model have been dashed.
Taiwan, in contrast to Hong Kong, already has a thriving democracy. Xi has offered the “one country, two systems” model to entice Taiwanese to embrace unification.
Aside from the simple fact that most Taiwanese reject the idea of unification in the first place, from the Occupy Central Three’s account, Xi’s promises are not what they say on the label.
The prospect of enforced unification via military means is unthinkable, from the invasion to the suppression of drawn-out resistance that would inevitably follow. Even if unification happened through peaceful means, Taiwanese, used to their democratic freedoms, would find themselves prosecuted for expressing their views.
Taiwanese must stand up and resist the idea of unification while they are still free to do so. As Tai said, if by going to jail he ignites a spark of hope in people’s hearts and inspires them to continue to engage in civil resistance to change society, then it would have been totally worthwhile.
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