Some 16,000 people marched yesterday in support of Hong Kong's controversial Article 23 of the Basic Law under the auspices of which the territory's government is introducing anti-subversion legislation. Beijing has, of course, never had much trouble mobilizing its rent-a-mobs in Hong Kong and yesterday's little display was a riposte to the 60,000 who marched a week earlier protesting against the new legislation.
The matter has received quite a lot of comment in Taiwan in the past week, most of it negative. The Mainland Affairs Council is worried that the new legislation will impede ties, tenuous as they are, between Hong Kong and Taiwan, while human rights activists have been urging Taiwanese to add their voice to the wave of international concern that surrounds what is widely seen as potentially a huge blow to Hong Kong's residual freedoms, seemingly in conflict with the freedom of speech promised to Hong Kong's people as part of the "one country, two systems" deal.
It is a coincidence, and one that we would have expected the blue camp, naturally concerned about anything that interferes with its covert cooperation and financing from Beijing, to have seized upon with glee, that Taiwan is also reviewing legislation not hugely different from that being drafted by Hong Kong. First there is a bill about the publication of state secrets. This is the result of the revelations orchestrated by subsequently disgraced PFP Legislator Diane Lee (
Probably sooner rather than later we can expect the pro-China media and Beijing's blue-camp followers to point out the similarity between Hong Kong legislation that reduces the media's right of free speech and the involvement in Hong Kong affairs of overseas political organizations or individuals and Taiwan legislation that, well, reduces the media's right of free speech and the involvement in Taiwan affairs of overseas political organizations or individuals. It ill becomes Taiwan's green camp liberals, they will say, to condemn the behavior of Beijing's puppet government in Hong Kong on the one hand while imitating it themselves on the other.
Expecting this as we do, we may as well launch a pre-emptive attack on this line of reasoning, so here we go. Taiwan's situation differs from that of Hong Kong in precisely this manner -- that if the government is seen by the people of Taiwan to be using its powers in a heavy-handed manner, those people have the right to boot that government out of office. The people of Hong Kong do not have that right. Taiwan's government is answerable to the people of Taiwan. Hong Kong's government is answerable to fewer than a dozen men in Beijing. And that's it, really. You don't have to compare the pieces of legislation looking for ways in which one version is more or less restrictive than another. All you have to know is that the Taiwan legislation is made within a political system where the governed can, if they wish, force change upon those who govern them. The Hong Kong legislation isn't. As Bill Clinton might have said: "It's the system, stupid!"
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS