In Hong Kong’s district council elections on Nov. 24, the pro-democracy camp won just more than 81 percent of the seats, dealing the pro-Beijing camp a crushing defeat. The New People’s Party, chaired by Regina Ip (葉劉淑儀), failed to secure a single seat.
Ip, who worked hard to push for national security legislation during her stint as the Hong Kong secretary for security, was severely punished by voters for supporting police violence.
Although district councils have very little say within Hong Kong’s political framework, the pro-democracy camp has equated the elections to a referendum, and this carries far-reaching political implications.
The democratic camp is not resting on its laurels, and the Civic Party has said that young protesters are not to be forgotten, as the landslide victory came at the cost of several lives.
The elected councilors must not let their memory or the public down, and they must consolidate their support to make as much as possible of the victory.
After the elections, councilors-elect representing about 1.6 million voters rushed to the Hong Kong Polytechnic University to rescue the students still trapped there.
However, Beijing sings the same old tune, as it always treats public opinion as its enemy, and the Hong Kong administration continues to serve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The territory has a long and uncertain road ahead of it, and Western countries should not assume that the CCP has been taught a lesson. Faced with these peaceful, rational and non-violent elections, will the Chinese and Hong Kong governments change their policies and tell the officials responsible to step down?
The election victory was a result of pro-democracy camp unity, as those campaigning focused on safeguarding Hong Kong’s core values of democracy and the rule of law without calling for independence.
Even so, the pro-democracy camp — including well-known activist Leung “Long Hair” Kwok-hung (梁國雄) — was defeated in 12 districts due to internecine fighting.
According to a friend who closely followed the elections, Leung was running for a seat in the same district as a “brave” — a young activist.
Instead of trying to negotiate with the young candidate, Leung squeezed him out using his star power, and when the young man returned to the street, he was arrested.
This caused a lot of discontent among pro-democracy voters, who refused to vote for Leung.
Leung, who used to be the most radical pro-democracy activist, must move with the times as he deals with today’s young “braves.”
In the past, his comrade Lau Shan-ching (劉山青) was imprisoned in China for 10 years for trying to rescue a Chinese democracy activist in Guangzhou, but Lau has stubbornly criticized these “braves” for hurting Hong Kong’s image.
This is a common phenomenon whenever old revolutionaries confront new problems.
This raises the question of whether Taiwan will vote against pro-Chinese parties in next month’s presidential and legislative elections.
Just look at the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) list of legislator-at-large nominees: The KMT has actually put retired lieutenant general Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) in fourth place, despite his calls for Taiwan to join hands with China against the US.
According to the Green Party Taiwan’s calculations, Wu would not be elected if the KMT receives less than 1.59 million votes in the legislative elections, and Taiwan would then be able to avoid the risk that Wu, upon entering the Legislative Yuan, would start offering the CCP Taiwanese and US military secrets.
Former legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅), who moves back and forth between the KMT and the New Party, was very excited to fly to China to promote cross-strait unification immediately after the New Party gave him the top spot on its legislator-at-large list.
That would place Taiwan in the same situation as Hong Kong and could well result in a repeat of the 228 Incident.
KMT supporters should seriously consider KMT vice presidential candidate Simon Chang’s (張善政) suggestion that they vote for other parties.
Democracy and sovereignty are Taiwan’s core values. Supporters of Taiwanese independence and Republic of China (ROC) independence should learn from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp and join hands.
Rather than arguing about the nation’s name, they should work together to maintain its de facto independence, using “ROC, Taiwan” (中華民國台灣), and reject the pro-China parties that are working for unification with the People’s Republic of China.
Despite seeing what is happening in Hong Kong, these unconscionable pro-China people still call for “one China.”
Considering what they say and do, the possibility that they are doing it to help the CCP divide Taiwan must be seriously considered.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his