Can Taiwan be an exemplar for a Hong Kong that seems to be fighting an authoritarian regime as the Taiwanese did? Circumstances do not allow for too much optimism, especially after the Hong Kong High Court on Tuesday disqualified two pro-independence lawmakers-elect from taking office.
When it comes to highlighting the similarities between pre-democracy Taiwan and Hong Kong under Chinese rule, there are parallels — such as facing an authoritarian regime and trying to break away from the monolithic narrative of “Chineseness.”
Taiwan had held limited elections before the lifting of martial law in 1987 and Hong Kong has a restricted democracy now.
The current row over the Legislative Council’s oath-taking procedures arise from the suppressed political environment in Hong Kong, echoing the cases of deliberate tampering with oath-taking by democratically elected representatives in Taiwan.
However, the historic and political situation in the two differs in ways that defy simple applications of the Taiwanese model, a reality that became more apparent after the intervention of Beijing’s National People’s Congress in Hong Kong’s legislative procedures and, more so, the High Court’s ruling.
When National Assembly representatives and Legislative Yuan members started to act against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime’s demand for a pledge of allegiance, they did so against a political background that had already been showing cracks.
More chaotic scuffles and open defiance were seen following the lifting of martial law in 1987. Several non-KMT National Assembly representatives in February 1990 refused to face the Republic of China (ROC) flag and the picture of ROC founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) while taking their oaths, prompting KMT representatives to request a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices.
The council which ruled that those who “failed or deliberately took the oath in a way not compliant to the regulations” were not allowed to exercise the powers granted by the post.
The student movement that was later called the Wild Lily Student Movement voiced the public’s annoyance against the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan seats still being largely occupied by those who arrived in Taiwan with the KMT regime in 1949.
The grand justices’ constitutional interpretation was never upended, but the following social upheavals and developments made it irrelevant.
The ROC symbolism was — and is — still cherished by some, but those who were for and against it knew that they were keeping a dynamic equilibrium on the issue in a democratic arena.
However, the decision made by Hong Kong’s High Court, which toed the line taken by the ruling from the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) — unlike Taiwan’s path of democratization — might signify an opposite turn, leading away from full democracy.
Beijing has not only the final, but an arbitrary say in Hong Kong’s political system. The NPC’s intervention set a bad precedent and created worries in the territory that could easily turn into self censorship.
Unlike the KMT regime, an “emigre regime” with nowhere left to run, Beijing easily wields its power in Hong Kong like an emperor manipulating his proxies.
Unless Beijing is to abandon the fig leaf of the “one country, two systems” model, the court’s decision is not yet final, as the two lawmakers are appealing it and there are efforts to procedurally obstruct authorities from announcing a by-election. However, a by-election would give Hong Kong voters a chance to demonstrate their defiance of Beijing by voting for other pro-democracy activists.
Elections make a difference not only through casting ballots, but also through spreading ideas and exchanging views and information, and Taiwan’s experience in this case speaks louder than words.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS