In the five years following the implementation of the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong, the world has witnessed the decline of democratic freedoms and economic competitiveness in the former British colony.
Beijing's "colonization" of Hong Kong has resulted in a serious case of cultural lag on the part of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The government is in reality a colonial government serving an authoritarian central government. The Pearl of the Orient has fallen. The people of Hong Kong know that Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) is nothing more than a lap dog for the Chinese Communist Party. And for people of Taiwan, the fifth anniversary of the handover was a painful day.
Before 1997, Hong Kong was considered the Pearl of the Orient, with prosperous and booming service, finance and tourism industries. After it was handed over to China in 1997, Hong Kong's status began to disintegrate. In 1996, Hong Kong managed to attract as much as 13 million tourists. The number began to gradually decline thereafter. This has much to do with the fact that, beginning in 1997, the former colony started to lose its cultural allure, which featured a unique blend of British and Chinese cultural traits. Tourists now prefer to get a taste of Chinese culture in places such as Beijing and Shanghai.
To the people of Hong Kong, the city no longer holds any attractions either. Nowadays, they work five days a week, and then, rather than engage in leisure consumption in Hong Kong on weekends, they go on a mere one-hour-long commute to the Shenzhen and Zhujiang for traveling and leisure activities.
The number of Hong Kong travelers to China totaled about 3 million in 1997, while the number reached 5 million last year. The amount of money these visitors took with them to China last year was possibly as much as HK$500 billion. They have no money to spare on investing and developing the territory.
Consumption is the most fundamental basis of economic development. It is also the index of the prosperity of the domestic market. Since the handover, Hong Kong's consumption market became bleak. Replacing it is the cheap consumption offered by newly rising Chinese cities nearby.
The truth of the matter is the business environment is making it difficult for manufacturers and the work force to remain in Hong Kong. Instead, they are forced to seek opportunities in the mainland. While workers are more inclined to move to Guangdong Province, the dimming of Hong Kong's financial and business sectors has forced an exodus of business leaders to areas in and around Shanghai and Zhejiang.
Moreover, while Hong Kong citizens are spending their money in the mainland -- or moving there altogether -- the mainland Chinese who are emigrating to Hong Kong have very little money to spend. They bring neither consumption nor professional skills, yet compete with locals for jobs accepting lower wages, helping raise the unemployment rate to as high as 7.7 percent.
Social changes and the econo-mic dependency of Hong Kong have caused the investment environment of the city to deteriorate. The real estate market and the stock market have both declined on a large scale. The occupancy rate of the hotel industry is only 60 percent. Assets and capital have depreciated by half, the retail sector is barely hanging on and the debts of small and mid-size firms are rising sharply. This is all due to erroneous policies of the territory's government.
The decline in the investment environment has caused the people of Hong Kong to lose faith in their administration. Nor do they identify with the chief executive appointed by Beijing, even though he is a native of Hong Kong. The change in market characteristics has made it im-possible for the investment mar-ket to regain vitality. Hong Kong has thus become a pool of stagnant water. The people of Hong Kong no longer put their hope in the territory.
Beijing is reportedly planning on developing Shenzhen into the pivot of the Hong Kong and Zhu-jiang service market. The hope is that, as result of Zhujiang's proximity to Hong Kong, the large number of foreign firms with regional headquarters and offices in the territory can be tempted to relocate to Shenzhen. In other words, the plan is to have Shenzhen replace Hong Kong's role. This is just one example of the way the territory is rapidly being replaced by newly rising Chinese coastal cities.
People of Hong Kong now believe that going to China is the only way out and their sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment has grown. Under British rule, the people of Hong Kong were proud of Hong Kong. But since the handover, they have been stripped of their dignity.
Hong Kong and Taiwan have the commonality of both being tied up with China politically and they both slant toward China economically. Together, they made possible the development of the Chinese coastal market.
Contributing to economic development in China has been Beijing's success in dealing with inflation, which kept labor prices along the Chinese coast down. But Beijing then turned around and used all of that revenue on military expansion. At the same time, it continues to lure capital, technology and manpower from Taiwan and Hong Kong, indirectly weakening the investment and capital markets in the two areas. Hong Kong's economic slant toward China, while its capital continues to pour into China, is creating a serious capital vacuum in the territory.
In the past five years, Hong Kong has poured US$150 billion into China, and Taiwan some US$120 billion. China has quickly become a rising world economic power. In contrast, Taiwan and Hong Kong have fallen into the quick sand of economic reces-sion. What have Hong Kong and Taiwan gotten out of their China investment? The people of Hong Kong don't have any more chance to ponder that question. But, the people of Taiwan still have time.
The people of Taiwan can see for themselves how the "one country, two systems" policy has made Hong Kong nothing more than a Chinese colony that Beijing is sucking up to enrich China. It has made China the center of the world manufacturing industry. It has turned ancient Shanghai into the trade, financial and economic center of the world. The once- deserted Shenzhen also became a world-class industrial center. The People's Liberation Army has also become the hub of the power of terror.
China promised the people of Hong Kong that there would be no change to their way of life for 50 years. How much longer can the territory hang on is something that that the US and Europe are closely watching. It is believed that the colonialization of Hong Kong under the "one country, two systems" will prematurely end the way of life that the people of Hong Kong have always known. The decay and erosion have long begun.
Now that Tung has been re-elected as the chief executive, "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong will more than likely head for "one country, one system" at an increasingly rapid pace. What other result can one possibly expect when, in the past five years, Beijing has consistently dealt with Hong Kong's economic and political problems based on the "one China" principle?
Under the circumstances and in view of Hong Kong's exper-ience, it is truly puzzling why the KMT and PFP continue to demand that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) accept the "one country, two systems" policy and open up direct links. Doing so would in essence be a total surrender to Bei-jing. Taiwan would ultimately become a mere special administrative region or a Chinese colony, just like Hong Kong.
Are these two parties bent on destroying Taiwan? THe KMT and PFP should be reminded of the Chinese proverb which cautions that "negotiating with the tiger for its hide" (與虎謀皮) can only bring devastation. The same may be said about Taiwan's economic slant toward China and its investment there.
I suggest that the PFP and the KMT each convene a national party congress to hold serious discussions concerning the "one China" principle and "one country, two systems." These two parties should no longer lie to and deceive the people of Taiwan. They should re-draft their party policy guidelines.
Moreover, the Taiwan government should also scrap the bud-get allocated for the National Unification Council. The council is a body entirely outside the constitutionally prescribed form of government structure to begin with. This is not to mention the fact that the body is in no way constructive to the stability and development of Taiwan.
Western democracies have long held that helping China's economic development would lead to its democratization, following the pattern of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. But this dream will never be realized in China.
China will never change its political and social structure. This is because the Chinese military is not only extremely resistant to progressive change, but is also extremely powerful. Its power derives from the fact that it is needed to "maintain peace" in areas such as East Turkestan and Tibet, and whoever is the Chinese president must also rely on its support of it and the support of the Chinese Communist Party. No amount of democratic values and ideals on the part of individuals such as Vice Premier Qian Qichen (錢其琛) could ever lead China onto a path of democratization.
On the surface, China may appear much more democratized than before, but its phony democracy is intended to lure capital and technologies. The ultimate goal of China is still regional domination, to say the least, and is really to defeat US hegemony. These ambitions can be glimpsed by looking at China's military modernization and arms buildup.
As for direct links, their opening would just sink Taiwan to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait. Direct links would only further speed up the outpouring of Taiwan's capital, technology and manpower to China, devastating Taiwan's economic development in the process.
China has never considered Taiwan to be an independent sovereign country. Therefore, it continues to handle the issue of direct links from a "one country, two systems" standpoint. The closer the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are, the less secure Taiwan is. Direct links would only increase Taiwan's economic slant toward China and would also further erode Taiwan's political independence and autonomy.
Lee Chang-kuei is the president of the Taipei Times and a professor emeritus of National Taiwan University.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS