Former Hong Kong chief secretary Anson Chan (陳方安生) and Hong Kong legislators Charles Mok (莫乃光) and Dennis Kwok (郭榮鏗) visited the US last month. During their 10-day visit, Chan met with US Vice President Mike Pence, while all three delegates were received by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The welcome they received was very encouraging for people in Hong Kong.
Chan is to make a further visit to Germany next month, when Hong Kong’s “father of democracy” Martin Lee (李柱銘) is scheduled to visit the US, together with three pro-democracy lawmakers.
These visits are sure to upset the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP loves to accuse Hong Kongers of using foreign forces to boost their own stature, and it goes without saying that the communists are also afraid that Hong Kongers will receive the support of foreigners.
What CCP officials never ask themselves is why Hong Kongers turn to foreigners for help. China is also a powerful country, so why do Hong Kongers avoid clinging to China’s skirt?
The Chinese communists never reflect on such matters. Why do they not invite people from the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong to visit Beijing? The communists have always seen pro-democracy figures as a major threat, and up to this day they still do not allow them to enter the Chinese mainland.
If China does not allow its own citizens to freely visit their own national territory, it is only natural for Hong Kongers to go abroad and “rely on foreigners” instead.
More than two decades have passed since 1997, when the UK handed Hong Kong back to China. In all that time, has there ever been a day when the Chinese Communist Party treated Kong Kongers well?
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region promises that Hong Kong’s lawmakers and chief executive will eventually be elected by universal suffrage, but that promise has been canceled. Hong Kongers have been deprived of their freedoms of speech and reporting, and their right to elect government officials.
In 2003, the Hong Kong government tried to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law by proposing the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill, but later withdrew it knowing that the Legislative Council would reject it.
Although the national security legislation has been shelved, the threat of it still hangs like the Sword of Damocles over Hong Kongers’ heads.
On March 29, the government introduced the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 to the Legislative Council for deliberation. This bill is like a dagger held against Hong Kongers’ throats.
Hong Kongers have taken to the streets and signed petitions in protest, but the government ignores us, leaving us with no choice but to turn to the US and friendly countries in Europe for help. Hong Kong is, after all, a major international city, and the human rights of foreign citizens living in Hong Kong are protected under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
The CCP loves to “beat its own children behind closed doors,” but now the children in its doorway include blond-haired, green-eyed foreigners, so of course Hong Kongers have a duty to tell these children’s parents what is going on so that they can protect their kids.
Turning to foreigners for help is meant to squeeze the CCP where it hurts. Will it have the desired effect? Only time will tell.
Kot Chun is a writer from Hong Kong.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US