Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has ascended China’s political mountaintop and is imposing his will on both the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese public. His time spent in the US did not turn him into a liberal: Under him, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has taken a sharply authoritarian direction.
What the PRC does at home no doubt concerns freedom-loving people around the world. Nevertheless, it comes as no surprise and China remains far freer today than during Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) rule.
However, Beijing’s domestic policies matter more when applied to nominally autonomous Chinese territories, most notably Hong Kong. The latter is not only the economically freest land on Earth, it also is governed by law, not men, and protects basic liberties. However, that appears to be changing, for the worse.
Seized by Great Britain from the decrepit Chinese Empire, the territory was returned in 1997. Beijing promised to preserve its unique characteristics as a special administrative region (SAR).
Little changed for many years. However, the 2014 “Umbrella movement” featured youth-driven demands for the impossible: democratic selection of the SAR’s political leaders. Protests ended with a political impasse.
Intrusions in Hong Kong’s autonomy have since increased. In 2015, several publishers critical of the PRC were arrested by Chinese authorities in seeming violations of international law.
Last year, two pro-independence activists were blocked from taking their seats in the Hong Kong Legislative Council after highlighting their contempt for Beijing while taking their oath of office. The Chinese National People’s Congress joined the controversy and Hong Kong authorities challenged the election of another four political activists.
In July, Xi visited Hong Kong to mark the 20th anniversary of China’s takeover and made clear his government would not tolerate support for independence. In August, three leaders of the “Umbrella movement” were sentenced to prison for their role in protests three years before.
Now the Legislative Council is expected to approve legislation pushed by Beijing to criminalize showing disrespect to China’s national anthem, which is played at Hong Kong sporting events. Participants at soccer matches have booed, chanted and waved banners against the PRC. The measure provides for a prison term of up to three years imprisonment.
Exactly how the measure would be enforced is unclear. Hong Kong would face the embarrassing question of whether it is willing to jail its people for what is pure free speech.
Much will be at stake in how it answers.
As China grows stronger, it needs to learn the value of forbearance. Beijing has the power to do most anything that it wants not in Hong Kong. However, prudence counsels for less, rather than more.
First, Hong Kong is the canary in the mine for Taiwan. Most Taiwanese, especially young people, do not identify with the PRC. Why would they choose to be ruled from Beijing?
To accept even a looser connection would require trust in the central authorities. However, what is occurring in Hong Kong is not reassuring. With a robust democracy, Taiwanese have even more to lose.
Second, the status of Hong Kong is an indicator of Beijing’s respect for international law. London never had the means to enforce its agreement with the PRC over Hong Kong’s return. However, the resulting pact was a symbol of China’s maturity. To ostentatiously toss aside the SAR’s most important liberties would demonstrate a worrisome mix of arrogance and impatience, sure to concern the PRC’s neighbors.
Third, targeting symbolic opposition rather than substantive resistance guarantees organized disobedience with public support. Plenty of Hong Kong residents oppose independence, or at least the pursuit of independence against the PRC’s wishes. However, they also believe in allowing people to express their views freely. Going after those deemed disrespectful toward China would be a nightmare.
Fourth, Beijing needs to fight for the hearts and minds of Hong Kong residents. Repression makes the PRC even less attractive, especially to young Hong Kongers.
Legal dissent is the equivalent of a popular steam valve, releasing public pressure. China has sufficient security forces to “win” any confrontation in the streets. However, coercion and violence would be devastating to the PRC’s international reputation.
With great power comes responsibility. So it is with China in Hong Kong.
Officials not used to opposition in Beijing bridle at criticism further from home. However, instead of attempting to stifle dissent in Hong Kong, they should channel criticism to more productive ends, while demonstrating why the PRC is an attractive overlord. Confrontation will benefit no one.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS