The recent Freedom in the World survey released by Freedom House shows that Hong Kong’s political freedom ranking has dropped. As the Chinese Communist Party’s intervention is becoming increasingly severe, Hong Kong’s political climate is facing an uncertain future.
Prior to last year’s Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong, the council banned some members of the local pro-independence factions from registering as candidates, and after the elections, two elected members were disqualified because their oaths of allegiance were said to be unlawful.
Furthermore, Causeway Bay Books owner Lam Wing-kei (林榮基) and Chinese tycoon Xiao Jianhua (肖建華) were taken to China for interrogation, which further damaged residents’ personal freedoms and freedom of expression, and posed a threat to the territory’s academic freedom and the superiority of its universities.
Hong Kong academia used to enjoy a good reputation. In last year’s QS University Rankings – Asia released by the higher education analysis company Quacquarelli Symonds, the National University of Singapore topped the list, but was followed by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in second place and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in fourth, while the City University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong were ranked seventh and eighth, respectively.
Hong Kong’s advantage is due to high salaries, which allows schools to attract instructors; its elite education with an enrollment rate of less than 20 percent; and academic freedom.
Academia in Hong Kong has been seen as a paradise for Chinese studies that presents no taboos in areas such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 democracy movement and Tiananmen Square protests.
However, the halcyon days of academic freedom seem to have passed. In 2014, British medical scientist Peter Mathieson was appointed president of HKU. He has gone through several incidents, such as HKU students’ participation in the “Umbrella movement,” controversy over the selection of HKU pro-vice-chancellor and an information leak from the HKU council. The pro-Beijing camp was dissatisfied with his liberal position.
Earlier this month, he announced his resignation and his new position as president of the University of Edinburgh, where his salary is estimated to be half of what he was paid at HKU. This is a major warning sign of receding academic freedom in Hong Kong.
Its declining freedom seems to have caused a brain drain. In 2006, there were only 481 immigrants from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This number remained low for seven years. In 2014 — the year of the “Umbrella movement” — 697 people emigrated to Taiwan from Hong Kong and Macau. In 2015, that number increased to 891 and last year it increased further to 1,273 people. This is second only to the number of immigrants from the US and Australia, and the highest number since 1998. In another few years, it might even exceed the record year of 1997.
The election of Hong Kong’s chief executive is a power game controlled by Beijing. If Hong Kongers want to obtain democratic rights, emigrating to another nation might be more feasible than attempting to promote political reform. The territory’s political backsliding might also force financial elites and academics to move abroad.
While Taiwan is facing problems like an aging population and a low birthrate, the authorities should not only protect the safety of dissidents, but also consider how to attract talented people from Hong Kong to enhance freedom and democracy and bolster science and technology.
Lin Thung-hong is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS