Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) has acted as a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pawn, promoting an extradition treaty with mainland China and enthusiastically supporting Beijing’s imposition of Hong Kong’s National Security Law.
Earlier this week, Lam announced that she would not seek re-election and would step down in June. Her decision to fall on her sword should serve as a lesson to Taiwan’s pro-unification, pro-China camp.
An experienced administrator with a doctorate from the University of Cambridge, Lam was in 2017 selected to be the territory’s fourth chief executive and the first woman to hold the office.
Many people initially held high expectations for her and hoped she would lead Hong Kong through a political transformation.
Unfortunately, Lam turned out to be no different from her predecessors. She toadied to Beijing’s every whim and fancy like an obedient lap dog, and abandoned her fellow Hong Kongers.
Consequently, as Lam in 2019 sought to push through an amendment to Hong Kong’s extradition laws, and then later went further by conniving with Beijing to introduce its national security legislation, she was deaf to the effects on local financial markets and academic freedoms, and to calls for democracy.
Lam endorsed the use of force to suppress the legitimate appeals of Hong Kongers, and sacrificed the territory’s freedoms and democracy in exchange for personal power.
In forfeiting her intellectual credentials to become Beijing’s loyal political servant, Lam inadvertently turned herself into a lightning rod for those seeking to punish the CCP.
First, she was forced to give up her honorary fellowship at her alma mater, Cambridge’s Wolfson College, and then she was hit with financial sanctions by the UK and the US. Now, even the CCP has dumped Lam by declining to support her bid for re-election.
Lam’s political machinations have come to naught and her pretensions to power have been revealed to be the chimera they always were. Her political defenestration should be a wake-up call to people in Taiwan’s pro-unification camp.
As a free and open democracy, Taiwanese are of course welcome to hold different political opinions, such as supporting Taiwanese independence, unification with China or maintaining the “status quo” — and they can run for office on their chosen platform.
However, some pro-unification Taiwanese and media organizations have, like Lam, forfeited their political autonomy and simply parrot whatever propaganda line is being pushed by Beijing.
They questioned Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, and more recently have been promoting a pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine line, mirroring the language coming out of Beijing.
Their slavish fawning at the feet of the CCP, their inability to distinguish friend from foe and their mechanical regurgitation of Chinese propaganda is identical to Lam’s behavior in every respect.
Lam has been unceremoniously tossed aside by her handlers in Beijing. Taiwanese who aspire to unite Taiwan with the “motherland” in the belief that this would bring them power and material gain should not be indifferent to her fate.
Paul Lei is a media industry veteran.
Translated by Edward Jones
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS