Chinese President Jiang Zemin (江澤民) attended the celebration for the fifth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China on July 1, as well as the inauguration ceremony of the second Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government. Although both Beijing and the SAR governments put serious effort into hosting extravagant festivities, nothing could hide the fact that the situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated since the handover.
Five years ago attention was focused on how Hong Kong might maintain its prosperity and stability. Now the focus is probably going to be on when Hong Kong's "one country, two system" might end. Once that happens -- and China loses a role model for its unification propaganda -- what kind of new propaganda Beijing will cook up is a key question.
Before July 1, the SAR government's suppression of human rights became increasingly appa-rent. Not only were a Chinese-American Falun Gong member and several dozen other Falun Gong members from Taiwan barred from entering Hong Kong, but some were actually forcibly put into sacks and loaded onto planes to be deported. Chinese-American dissident Harry Wu (吳弘達) was among the individuals barred from entering the territory. Princeton University's Perry Link, who co-edited The Tiananmen Papers, was also detained and questioned by immigration officials when he landed in Hong Kong.
These violations of human rights demonstrate that, after five years of experimenting with "one country, two systems," Hong Kong has fallen and is no longer the former colony known for liberalism and openness. Link used his own experience as an example and said that the "one country, two systems" has proven to be a failure. The truth of the matter is that what the experience of Hong Kong in the past five years proves does not end with the failure of "one country, two systems."
Red alerts have started flashing over Hong Kong's judicial independence and respect for human rights. Five years ago, the Chinese government vowed that after the handover "people will continue to dance in parties and the horses will continue to run in races" (舞照跳,馬照跑). In other words, it would be business as usual for at least 50 years. Now this former "pearl of the Orient" has been superceded by Shanghai. Even the territory's economy has been marginalized.
Let's use the Falun Gong as example. In the past, when Beijing was cracking down on Falun Gong members, it had to turn a blind eye to the sect's activities in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the Central People's Government Liai-son Office [Beijing's representative office in Hong Kong] and the pro-China media still demanded that the territory's government re-examine its policy toward the Falun Gong and terminate the sect's organization registration.
The conduct of these Beijing mouthpieces has worried the Hong Kong media and people. They felt that such moves were essentially seeking to destroy "one country, two systems." In the long run, Hong Kong's handling of the Falun Gong depended on whether the sect had violated any SAR laws. So long as it did not violate any law, the government did not interfere. Such policy, a continuation the British colonial government's policies, seemed to challenge Beijing's tolerance.
It is noteworthy that less than one week before the anniversary of the handover, Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen (錢其琛) said that the Hong Kong government must enact legislation, based on Article 23 of the Basic Law, to ban certain activities, including those of the Falun Gong. Qian often engages in peaceful unification propaganda to push for the "one country, two systems." His statement has essentially tolled the bell for "one country, two systems."
It is high time for those in Taiwan who continue to hold illusions regarding Qian's propaganda to wake up. Qian also pointed out that Beijing opposes any rapid changes to Hong Kong's election system, including democratic and popular elections. Accordingly, Hong Kong's government and the Legislative Council will forever remain in Beijing's tight grip -- an ironical contrast to the idea of "Hong Kong people govern Hong Kong and high self-autonomy."
Why has "one country, two systems" gone bankrupt in five short years? Why has China tossed out even the "window dressing of democracy?" It is because Hong Kong's economy has been vacuumed by China. Its economy is declining, its industries are rapidly relocating across the border, the unemployment rate is surging, the real estate market is nearly in ruins and the overall wealth of the territory is dwindling. Things have gotten to the point that the SAR government is asking the central government for capital. The economic marginalization of Hong Kong is not far off.
On the other hand, China is luring Hong Kong resources to develop its coastal cities, endea-voring to develop Shanghai into the transportation and finance hub of Asia. The biggest assets of Hong Kong were a free society and economic prosperity. Now, its freedoms are being suffocated by Beijing, while its economy has become an appendix to the mainland's. What right does Hong Kong have to ask that Beijing comply with its vows with respect to the "one country, two systems?"
For years, China has been trying to tempt Taiwan with the Hong-Kong model. Taiwan is a sovereign country. To impose "one country, two systems" on Taiwan would be to disregard cross-strait reality. Taiwan should not even be haggling over the details of "one country, two systems."
The people of Taiwan should be alarmed by the manner in which China is trying to hollow out Hong Kong. Once Taiwan becomes economically marginalized, it too will have very few choices. Taiwan and China differ in size, but are identical in culture and languages. If the core of Taiwan's economy, including industries and capital, move to China, Taiwan will follow Hong Kong's example. From industrial development, to job opportunities, to consumption, to travel, everything will become dependent on China. Taiwan will then become an economic vassal of Beijing and lose its autonomy.
Some people hold illusions for cross-strait integration and even political integration. They believed it would bring cross-strait peace and even allow Taiwan to share the glory of a great country. Little do they realize that once the two sides integrate or even unify, China's economic center will be Shanghai, while its political center will remain in Beijing. What position could already-marginalized Taiwan possibly have?
In recent weeks, both the opposition and ruling camps have rushed to call for a more massive opening up of investment in China, loudly publicizing that "direct links" between the two sides are inevitable. They disregard the domestic recession and the rising unemployment rate. In fact, they even use these as excuses for the China fever.
Despite being trusted by their constituents, some of Taiwan's legislators do not even have the heart to pay any serious attention to domestic affairs. Rather, they prefer to shuttle between the two sides of Taiwan Strait, sacrificing Taiwan's future to develop China's eco-nomy. We can't understand how, if Taiwan's economy becomes a vassal of China so that Beijing can do as it pleases with Taiwan politically, the opposition and ruling camps will face the public? Will those lawmakers serve any further unification-propaganda purposes then?
Economics is the heart of Taiwan's survival. It was this way in the past and it will continue to be this way in the future. We have always felt deeply skeptical about opening up investments in China on a large-scale. This is not because we are obsessed with opposing unification, or China, or supporting anti-communism ideologies. Rather, it is out of pragmatic consideration for Taiwan's long term economic development that we call for the nurturing Taiwan's economic autonomy.
Taiwan's economic dependency on China has increased sharply. China's political blackmailing has become more serious as well. Once Taiwan's economy is sucked dry by China, business owners will have to rely on the mercy of Beijing or expect Chinese capital to come rescue Taiwan's eco-nomy. The vast number of workers and society at large in Taiwan will no longer enjoy prosperity.
The people of Taiwan, who once created an economic miracle, should be entitled to determine their own future with dignity. Why become marginalized second or third-class citizens? Taiwan is not Hong Kong. After witnessing Hong Kong's ordeal, people should reflect more deeply about the future of Taiwan.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS