University students in Hong Kong on Monday began a week-long boycott of classes to show Beijing their resolve to secure true universal suffrage for the territory. The Hong Kong student movement and Taiwan’s Sunflower movement will both become major milestones in Chinese-speaking democracy.
The Hong Kong boycott aims to counter colonialist control and screening of candidates for the territory’s chief executive. Although sovereignty of the former British colony was handed over in 1997, China has continued the colonial system of governance.
The British set up several functional constituencies in the Legislative Council so that the business world and professional groups could participate in the system of representative democracy. The difference is that when the British were in control, these constituencies were limited to business and professional groups, but under Beijing, they include the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), pro-Beijing establishment factions and tycoons, all of whom wield control over government policy. The public continues to have limited influence over the political process. This is why the students say they oppose colonialism.
Prior to 1997, the CCP gave assurances that it would maintain a “one country, two systems” administration in Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy, democratic governance and no change to the system for 50 years. However, it has reneged on these promises.
The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Aug. 31 released its resolution on Hong Kong’s political reform, putting an end to hopes for democratic universal suffrage and causing many democracy activists in the territory to lose all faith in China. When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met a business delegation headed by former Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) on Monday, he confirmed that Beijing would not budge.
There are differences between the student movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The former is trying to secure political freedoms, while the latter is opposed to the government’s handling of an economic issue, namely the lack of transparency in negotiations over the cross-strait service trade agreement. However, at the core of both lies a distrust of China, and both demonstrate that Beijing’s “one China, two systems” formula is bankrupt for Hong Kongers and Taiwanese alike.
Civil society in both Taiwan and Hong Kong is awakening, and the two are learning from each other as they seek ways to counter Beijing’s political and economic machinations. The international community is keenly observing the unfolding situation, which is also facilitating the growth of a fledgling democracy movement in China proper.
The Chinese Communist Party regime relies on totalitarian rule. It distrusts and fears its own people, and certainly panics at the thought of a democracy movement catching hold in China. It sees anyone who seeks more rights as an enemy with separatist or independence designs.
China is already making preparations to counter what it imagines are separatist elements within Hong Kong. Its approach could not be more different from the British government’s handling of Scotland’s desire for an independence referendum.
If Beijing wants to win back trust, it could do worse than learn from the British government’s approach toward Scotland. It should have the confidence to allow Hong Kongers greater democratic rights and truly implement “one country, two systems.” Hong Kong would be a democratic trial run for China proper, which could perhaps not only regain the trust of the territory’s residents, but also win the goodwill of the Taiwanese.
Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) set China on the road to economic liberalization. Now would be the time for his heirs to embrace more political freedoms.
However, given Xi’s actions since taking office, punters can probably safely bet on the opposite.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS