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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS