April 4 marks the 15th anniversary of the promulgation of Hong Kong's Constitution, the Basic Law, by China's National People's Congress. The Basic Law supposedly established a political framework to accord with the late Deng Xiaoping's (鄧小平) policy of "one country, two systems," with Hong Kong's people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.
Under this policy, Hong Kong's capitalist system, the rule of law, and its people's freedoms and way of life were to be preserved. It provided for a popularly elected chief executive and Legislative Council. Apart from defense and foreign affairs, Hong Kong was to be master of its own house.
But, despite its promise of universal suffrage, the Basic Law restricts democratic development during the first 10 years after the handover of Hong Kong. Full democracy is to be permitted only in 2007.
I said in my maiden speech in the Legislative Council in 1985 that the policy of "one country, two systems" cannot work without democracy. As Deng once said of China: "With a good system, even evil men cannot do evil. But without a good system, even good men cannot do good, but may be forced to do evil."
For Hong Kong, the only good system is democracy. For under a democracy, those in power realize that it is the people who put them in office, and they will be voted out if they are perceived to be serving China's interests.
Of course, Deng's policy can work only if Beijing wants it to work. Indeed, not only must China refrain from interfering in Hong Kong's internal affairs, but it must encourage the people of Hong Kong to defend their much smaller system.
Unfortunately, Beijing has other ideas. On July 1, 2003, the sixth anniversary of the handover, nearly a million people took to Hong Kong's streets in a peaceful protest against an anti-subversion bill that would have eroded freedom of the press, of religion and of association. The demonstration led the bill's withdrawal, as well as to the resignation of the secretary for security, who was responsible for it.
The demonstration spurred a major change in China's policy toward Hong Kong. Until then, interference from China was covert and subtle, so that the public perception was that chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) was in charge. Afterwards, China adopted a hands-on approach, letting the people know who the boss really is. Thus, on April 26 last year, China announced its unilateral decision that Hong Kong is not to have democracy in 2007 without saying when Hong Kong will have it.
Then came Tung's resignation early this month. The popular belief is that Tung was sacked or pressured to step down. Although the election of the next chief executive will not take place until July, China has let it be known that acting chief executive Donald Tsang (曾蔭權) is the chosen one.
Moreover, although the Basic Law prescribes a five-year term for the chief executive, China is insisting that the winner will only serve for the remainder of Tung's term, until June 30, 2007. The clear message is that after almost eight years of Chinese rule Beijing does not trust anyone in Hong Kong to govern for five years.
This, surely, is the greatest indictment of China's Hong Kong policy since 1997. But the solution lies in changing the system, not just the leader. The way forward is not more control or suppression, but more trust and democracy. The latter leads to the full implementation of Deng's "one country, two systems" policy, while the former turns the Basic Law into a worthless piece of paper.
In 1984, then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher said of the impending handover of Hong Kong, "The eyes of the world are on us." That may or may not be true today, but at least the people of Taiwan are watching.
Martin Lee is the founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS