Surely no one could be surprised by the decision of the Central Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress (NPC) on Monday to bar Hong Kong's people from electing their chief executive in 2007 and all members of the Legislative Council (Legco) in 2008. After all, on April 6 the Central Standing Committee issued a binding interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law that said Beijing must give advance approval for any changes in the way the territory's leader and lawmakers are selected. People knew this was coming.
This turn of events -- however predictable it might have been -- was nevertheless disappointing to the people of Hong Kong. The decision was obviously highly inconsistent with Beijing's guarantee to offer Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" under the Joint Declaration between China and Britain over the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997.
Also disappointed were the US and Britain, which issued statements with respect to the decision. British Foreign Minister Bill Rammell on Monday expressed his concern and the hope to meet with the Chinese ambassador to Britain. On the other hand, US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said that the US was "disappointed by the decision."
With all international eyes on it, Beijing remains unfazed, as usual, in facing international pressure and concerns regarding democracy and human rights issues and uses nationalism to justify itself. In fact, its initial response to the international concerns was hostile -- to say the least. For example, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (
While Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) pledged on Wednesday to "ultimately" allow direct election of the territory's chief executive and legislature, he gave no timeframe. The problem is it has become increasingly difficult to believe the words and promises from Beijing when it comes to democracy. Didn't the people of Hong Kong also have high hopes about the guarantee by Beijing about "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" before the handover?
At least Hong Kong had Britain to advocate its interests prior to 1997. After the handover, who is going to do that? Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華)? Wasn't he the one who made the recommendations upon which the Central Standing Committee of the NPC based its decision on Monday?
It is time for the world to realize that Beijing has no genuine wish to implement democracy in any part of China. In fact, it has virtually no concept of what democracy is -- as demonstrated by the statement of Qiao Xiaoyang (喬曉陽), deputy secretary-general of the NPC Central Standing Committee, on Tuesday in Hong Kong, that: "Governments who are led by the nose by public opinion are irresponsible." If this reflects the sentiment of the entire Chinese leadership regarding democracy, just about all hopes have been dashed for a democratic breakthrough in any part of China.
In fact, it is probably safe to conclude that Beijing is not only clueless about what democracy is, but it actually fears democracy. Beijing was obviously taken aback by the demonstration in Hong Kong on July 1 last year in which more than 500,000 people participated and which forced Tung to withdraw an anti-subversion bill. After that incident, Beijing probably decided it was high time to put the brakes on demands for democracy, which reinforced its decision to ban popular elections in the region in the immediate future.
Under the circumstances, the people of Taiwan should have even more appreciation for their hard-earned democracy and not be discouraged by recent political controversies over the outcome of the presidential election.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
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