Two decades ago China and Britain reached an agreement to hand over Hong Kong to China and then implement "one country, two systems" there. After the recent issuance by the standing committee of China's National People's Congress of an interpretation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), that agreement has been officially broken. According to this ruling, while the manner of selecting the SAR chief executive in 2007 and members of the Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008 may be amended, the central government holds the ultimate power to decide on this amendment. The move means that the demand of the Hong Kong people for popular election of the chief executive and Legco has been rejected by China.
This not only cuts off Hong Kong's path toward democracy, but also means that China has destroyed autonomy in Hong Kong through this ruling. The balance is gradually shifting toward the "one country" and away from "two systems." Basically the illusion of "one country, two systems" has been dispelled. The Chinese dictators gave barely a second thought to junking the system in an attempt to destroy the flames of democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong.
"One country, two systems" was the brainchild of the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). The central idea, as applied to Hong Kong, was to allow the colony to maintain its existing political and economic systems after it was handed back to China. In other words, Hong Kong was to continue implementation of its free market economy, growing democracy and its free way of life, sugar-coasted with flowery slogans such as "no change for 50 years," "high level of autonomy," and "having Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong."
"One country, two systems" was not only used to comfort the people of Hong Kong before the handover, but also to reassure the international community. So, the idea of "one country, two systems" was not only to resolve the problems posed by the gaps between the systems in Hong Kong and China, but also to maintain peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism. It was also supposed to be a role model that China could use in its unification propaganda directed toward Taiwan.
However, in the more than six years since the handover, "one country, two systems" has proven incapable of meeting the demand for democratization within Hong Kong, a trend which seriously conflicts with and challenges the autocratic nature of China itself. Beijing finally could no longer hold back and asserted its authority, shattering the "one country, two systems" model in the process.
In reality, the conflict between democratic progress in Hong Kong and Chinese totalitarianism erupted long before the handover. In the mid-1990s, then-Hong Kong governor Chris Patten had planned to speed up the process of democratization in Hong Kong, but was subjected to serious criticism and hysterical opposition by China, which labeled him "sinner of the age." After the handover, the pace of democratization in Hong Kong was thrown into reverse. The one half of Legco that is elected is chosen through a highly restricted franchise while the other half remains appointed by Beijing as, of course, is the chief executive.
As a result, even though the Democratic Party won a landslide victory in the District Council election at the end of last year, it remained incapable of becoming the legislative majority party. Under the circumstances, the calls for democratization in Hong Kong have become louder. Popular election of the chief executive in 2007 and all Legco members by 2008 is the mainstream popular will in Hong Kong. In the massive rally on July 1 last year held to oppose Article 23 of the Basic Law, more than 500,000 people showed up.
A recent survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong indicated that despite "patriotic" propaganda and an intimidation campaign staged by Beijing over the past six months, more than 60 percent of the people in Hong Kong continue to support popular election of the chief executive. Evidently, the demand for democratization in Hong Kong cannot be stopped.
China can see that the democratization campaign in Hong Kong is gaining momentum, and also is beginning to understand that "one country, two systems" has lost what little allure it ever had for the people of Taiwan. China had to choose between securing its authority in Hong Kong and maintaining a fiction that no longer could dupe its intended victims, the Taiwanese. Not surprisingly it chose authority over window-dressing and threw cold water on the flame of democracy in Hong Kong.
As indicated by an editorial published by a Hong Kong newspaper, the fact that President Chen Shui-bian (
China has had its ultimate say over the political development of Hong Kong through the ruling issued by the Standing Committee of National People's Congress. It has at the same time denied the demands for popular election of the chief executive and all member of the Legco. Article 7 of Appendix 1 to the Basic Law, as well as Appendices 2 and 3 state that after 2007, if the manner of electing the chief executive and members of the Legco is to be revised, the approval of two-thirds of all Legco members and the chief executive is needed.
Moreover, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress needs to either approve or be notified. However, according to the ruling issued by the Standing Committee, the chief executive must first submit a report to the central government, and the legal amendment must conform with the principle of gradual change and the actual situation in Hong Kong. This means that Beijing holds not only the key to initiating the amendment, but also the ultimate say so. The people of Hong Kong can only depend on the mercy of Beijing. Democracy will certainly wither in Hong Kong.
In other words, on the surface, the Standing Committee merely issued an interpretation of the Basic Law, but it has, in substance, changed the articles of the said law, accomplishing a political agenda through a legal procedure. As indicated by Democratic Party founder and Legco member Martin Lee (
During negotiations between China and Britain in 1984, the British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, questioned whether a highly totalitarian political entity could support a free and open society. Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" is now a prison cell of China's devising. It is living proof that Taiwan has made the right decision in taking a path of its own.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press
RSS