The Hong Kong government applied to the court to confiscate assets belonging to Hong Kong pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai (黎智英), and a hearing has been scheduled for July 8.
This is not merely a follow-up to an individual criminal case, but another demonstration by Hong Kong that when a regime treats dissent as hostility, the subsequent assault on freedom does not stop at personal liberty — it extends to property, the media and public memory.
Today, it is Lai whose assets are being pursued, but what is really being put to the test is how much confidence society still has in the bottom line of the rule of law.
Beijing promised Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy,” claiming that things would remain unchanged for 50 years. It also enshrined private property and individual freedoms under Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The issue has never been whether these promises sounded appealing, but whether those in power are willing to let those promises bind them.
When the power of interpretation and the power of enforcement are in the hands of authoritarians, provisions originally meant to protect the people can at any moment be turned into tools for suppressing freedom.
What should alarm Taiwan the most about Lai’s case is that the path has already been laid out with striking clarity. First, the scope of repression is expanded under the guise of national security. Then, assets are frozen through legal procedures. Next, Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper and one of the largest Chinese-language media outlets in Hong Kong, is forced to shut down due to a funding shortfall — and now, further moves have been made to confiscate the remaining related assets.
This proves that what authoritarian regimes seek to eliminate is never just one individual, but the very conditions under which dissenting voices can exist.
If there are still those in Taiwan who package engagement with China as a shortcut to peace or treat authoritarian promises as guarantees of security, they should take Hong Kong’s lesson seriously.
It is not that Hong Kong lacked institutional commitments or legal provisions, but that those assurances ultimately could not withstand the redefinition of power.
Today, newspapers might be taken away. Tomorrow, it might be property. The next day, society could lose its capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
It is worth noting that this pattern is not unique to Hong Kong, but rather an outcome that any society operating within an authoritarian framework might face.
Authoritarian systems do not excel by immediately declaring the end of freedom, but by first permitting, then restricting, then punishing — conditioning people, through repeated concessions, to grow accustomed to silence.
By the time someone finally looks back, what has been lost is often no longer just a piece of property or a media outlet, but the last vestige of confidence that freedom can still be guaranteed.
In viewing Lai’s case, Taiwan must not stop at sympathy alone, but must fully grasp the institutional warning it conveys.
What truly protects freedom has never been the temporary goodwill of those in power or the most eloquently written promises — but rather a democratic system that effectively constrains authority, an independent judiciary and a civil society that refuses to be silenced. Only by upholding these things can Taiwan ensure that Hong Kong’s present does not become its own future.
Steve Ho is a retired engineer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS