The devastating fire at the Wang Fuk Court housing complex in Tai Po, Hong Kong, resulted in at least 159 deaths, with dozens still missing. The several subtle incidents that followed the tragedy revealed the top priority of the Hong Kong Government and the authorities in Beijing in responding to the disaster — maintaining the stability of the regime. The rights and interests of Hong Kong residents have been all but sidelined.
For Taiwanese, who are accustomed to democracy and freedom, this should serve as an urgent warning — especially now that some have even proposed the insidious notion of “one country, two regions.”
After the disaster, students in Hong Kong attempted to launch an online petition that outlined their demands: continued support and proper resettlement for residents impacted by the fire, the establishment of an independent investigative committee to probe possible corruption and full government accountability.
For Taiwanese, such demands are completely justified, typical of everyday democratic practice, but that is not the case in Hong Kong.
The person responsible for initiating the petition, 24-year-old Miles Kwan (關靖豐), was immediately arrested by Hong Kong’s national security police on suspicion of “sedition.” A former legislator who shared the online petition was also arrested, accused of “stirring hatred.”
Expressing demands in response to major social events is a right protected in Taiwan, but in Hong Kong, it has become a criminal act that puts one in danger of arrest and prosecution.
Do Taiwanese truly want to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and live such a life? If the CCP were to govern Taiwan or a “one country, two regions” framework was actually adopted, simply expressing opinions, or raising demands after major disasters or regarding large-scale energy projects could result in an arrest.
Would Taiwanese ever get used to that?
The Wang Fuk Court fire is littered with suspicious circumstances. Before even determining the cause of the incident, the Hong Kong government has moved against the public, charging people with “stirring chaos,” and accusing “anti-China forces” of “inciting social division” and “stirring hatred against authorities.”
Even a public news conference on high-rise building maintenance policies was canceled, and its organizers were forcibly summoned for questioning.
Do Taiwanese truly want to live under a “one country, two regions” system, enduring a life where they are banned from even holding a simple news conference?
By the Hong Kong government’s standards, Taiwanese could be arrested and imprisoned for such actions.
Under those circumstances, how could there be any meaningful government oversight or protection of public rights and interests?
What use would your grievances be when there is nowhere to seek justice?
One of the most precious aspects of Taiwanese society is that people have the right to speak freely about major issues as well as national small social matters. They have the right to rigorously scrutinize the government through assembly and association. Meanwhile, it has already been proven that under Chinese rule, Hong Kongers have no right to discuss public safety.
With the facts before us, would you still accept the deadly “one country, two systems” arrangement?
Chen Kuan-lin is a research manager from Taipei.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
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
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS