The continued existence of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong had given a flicker of hope that a path remained to improving the political situation in the former British colony. That faint flicker looks like it would soon be extinguished.
Established in 1994, a few years before the UK government’s official handover of Hong Kong to Beijing in 1997, the Democratic Party is the oldest and largest extant pro-democracy party in the territory. At times accused of being cautious in its advocacy, the party followed a pragmatic approach to achieving reform, and was the only party in Hong Kong that negotiated directly with Beijing’s Hong Kong Liaison Office.
It was through this relationship that party members were informed by Chinese officials that Beijing had lost its patience with the party, and that they should prepare to disband or face serious consequences.
In truth, the writing has been on the wall for some time. While the final decision to disband has yet to be made, a party general meeting on Sunday concluded with 90 percent of members voting to move forward with the process.
Any vestigial effort to improve the rights situation in Hong Kong has to be organized from outside. Amnesty International on Tuesday announced that it had relaunched its Hong Kong branch “in exile,” after its two offices in the territory were closed in 2021 following the introduction of Hong Kong’s National Security Law the previous year. Registered in Switzerland, the office’s operations are to be orchestrated by Hong Kongers in Taiwan, Australia, Canada, the UK and the US.
The system in Hong Kong has been so entirely subsumed by Beijing’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime as to make any reference to it as separate from China irrelevant. Democracy in Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP has killed it.
British lawmaker Wera Hobhouse on Thursday last week was denied entry into Hong Kong. Hobhouse said that she had been given no reason. A Hong Kong government spokesperson said only: “The person concerned knows best what he or she has done.”
The Hong Kong government gave the impression that there was no need to explain the denial, almost as if it was surprised the question even had to be asked. Perhaps it had a right to be, at which point the question becomes, why should anybody be surprised that the authorities act like this in the new Hong Kong?
Hobhouse should not have been surprised that she was turned away. She is a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). There is little love lost between the CCP and IPAC. Reports of the denial say that Hobhouse was the first British MP to have received that kind of treatment since the 1997 handover. However, it is not entirely without precedent.
In 2014, a British delegation seeking to visit Hong Kong to monitor adherence to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration was refused entry. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying (華春瑩) at the time said “Britain has no sovereignty over Hong Kong ... and no right to oversight.” Actually, according to the agreement, it did.
Three years later, ministry spokesman Lu Kang (陸慷) said the declaration is “a historical document that no longer has any realistic meaning.” That unilateral interpretation should not be surprising, either.
The British government might have been offended that a British MP was turned away from its former colony, but Hobhouse was not refused entry into Hong Kong, she was turned away from China. Did nobody listen to what Hua and Lu said? What has happened to Hong Kong is tragic, but nobody should be surprised.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS