Disappointment, frustration and anger might be the best words to describe the popular mood in Hong Kong today. The annual New Year’s Day pro-democracy march has become part of the territory’s political calendar, as thousands of conscientious citizens took to the streets, opposing authoritarian governance and demanding Beijing allow them direct democracy.
Ever since the British hand-over of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China in July 1997, the territory has been ruled by corporate business elites whose concerns are identical to those of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership. Since corporate greed has taken precedence over public interest, the post-colonial administration has always favored the top 1 percent at the expense of the majority of the population.
After so many years of economic dysfunction, Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) and his cronies have been indifferent toward popular grievances and incapable of handling any crisis.
Meanwhile, China’s central government is still struggling to come to grips with the root causes of massive occupations of several downtown districts during the “Umbrella movement” in late 2014. The state-controlled media only looked at the Umbrella protests through the lens of Cold War politics, condemning Hong Kongers for undermining China’s policy of “one country, two systems” and subverting the socialist state.
So far, the political message from Beijing has been an ambiguous one, indicating that the position of the CCP leadership is still shifting. Much can be done to strengthen the local pro-democracy struggle and reassure Beijing of Hong Kongers’ desire for peace and stability within the Chinese nation.
The Umbrella movement in late 2014 and this year’s New Year’s Day pro-democracy march were not simply calling for the end of Leung’s administration. These protests rejected the entire system of authoritarian governance that Beijing has put in place.
Most post-Umbrella movement activists understand that democracy is neither a matter of having more directly elected lawmakers in an unrepresentative government nor that of gambling Hong Kong’s political future. They see democracy as a means of empowering the public in the decisionmaking process.
What they want is full democratization of the executive and legislative branches of government. Any failure to equip Hong Kongers with the opportunity and resources to create a highly autonomous administration would only betray China’s “one country, two systems.”
As far as Beijing is concerned, Hong Kong still has minimal symbolic significance for Taiwan. Since Taiwanese are fiercely debating the nation’s rapprochement with China before the upcoming elections on Saturday next week, any crackdown on Hong Kong protesters that is reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre would induce Taiwan to move toward independence.
However, there have been too many instances where reality falls short of the democratic ideals underpinning Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
Beijing has not taken any initiative to democratize the territory. Since Hong Kongers cannot introduce democratic change from within, they remain deeply frustrated with their unrepresentative rulers and have decided to vote with their feet by attending pro-democracy rallies every New Year’s Day. This irreconcilable tension and conflict will continue to shape the territory’s political landscape and its troublesome relationship with China this year.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is a professor of history and codirector of the bachelors’ degree program in global Asia studies at Pace University in New York.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS