On Dec. 15, 60,000 residents of Hong Kong demonstrated in opposition to the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law. It was the largest demonstration since Hong Kong reverted to China, indicating increased resistance among residents against Beijing's and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government's plans for further restrictions on freedom and human rights. The reasons for the large-scale opposition are many and varied.
First, this is a decisive moment upon which the survival of "one country, two systems" hinges. In the five-plus years since Beijing took back Hong Kong, "one country, two systems" has been continually encroached upon. The implementation of Article 23 would completely do away with any pretense of "one country, two systems." It would supplant the rule of law with the rule of man and replace freedom with authoritarianism.
Second, the SAR government has angered Hong Kong residents with its "hard-sell" tactics. Officials not only turn a deaf ear to residents' opinions but also make irrational arguments and flaunt specious accounts of China's history of contact with foreign powers. They coerce residents into accepting their twisted logic and hint that the chairman of the Democratic Party, Martin Lee (李柱銘), is betraying the nation when he opposes the legislation.
Third, the slander spewing from pro-Beijing figures has prompted a backlash. Those who are against the legislation are labelled as "traitors" and the Bishop of Hong Kong Joseph Zen (陳日君) has been called "senile" and a "pathological disciple."
Since this is a major controversy, it has attracted the attention of Western countries that once believed China's promise of "one country, two systems." It has also prompted overseas Chinese to respond. At the time of the Hong Kong demonstration, petitions, gatherings, and demonstrations were organized in various cities where overseas Chinese congregate in order to show support for opposition to Article 23.
An organization known as the Global Coalition against Article 23 Legislation launched a petition drive on the Web. At the time of this writing, there are already 3,600 signatures from around the world, including both Chinese and non-Chinese. This shows the power of the Internet. Even people in China signed the petition because Beijing still hadn't had time to block the Web site. A group of Chinese intellectuals living abroad have followed the lead of Wang Dan (王丹), a student leader from the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement, and jointly signed a petition to show their opposition to the implementation of Article 23.
The first city to hold a gathering and demonstration was Washington DC in the US. Apart from the Hong Kong Chinese in the area, the Global Alliance for Democracy and Peace (GADP), Chinese democracy activists, and students of Falun Gong also took part. GADP Chairman Wu Ho-i (巫和怡) braved the cold wind to speak in person. Other cities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and even Sydney, Australia, all held such events. Among them, Toronto, which has the largest population of Hong Kong Chinese, held multiple events one after another. Boston will hold an event on Feb. 21 of next year, and Wang Dan will participate in that event. On the next day, I myself will speak about Article 23 at a GADP-organized event in New York City.
Taiwanese have participated in the petition campaign and other activities. The Taiwan Association for Human Rights and the Taiwan Falun Dafa Association held a hearing at the Legislative Yuan to oppose the implementation of Article 23. Academics and experts were invited to come participate in the discussion. This was not just a show of concern and support for human rights in Hong Kong. It also amounted to a kind of immunization process, allowing people to recognize China's "one country, two systems" for what it really is.
Hong Kong's Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) and the director of Beijing's liaison office in Hong Kong, Gao Siren (高祀仁), have both publicly declared that the demonstrations will not affect the legislation, showing their low regard for public opinion. Perhaps they believe that the more demonstrations are taking place, the greater the need to suppress them. That is how tyrants naturally tend to think.
The North American New Chinese Television Network recently broadcast an interview with Sima Lu (司馬璐), a renowned historian of the Chinese Communist Party who is currently living in New York City. This venerable revolutionary was a comrade-in-arms of Chinese President Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) foster father, Jiang Shangqing (江上青), said on the basis of his nearly 70 years of contact with the CCP that the more the party is publicizing something, the less it can be believed. He believes Hong Kong should break free of China's influence and control, saying bravely that the territory should be independent. Didn't Singapore do just fine after becoming independent of Malaysia?
The Web site of the Global Coalition against Article 23 Legislation is www.againstarticle23.org.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS