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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS