On July 7, at least 20 legislative councilors from Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement met Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
As expected, we were rebuffed. Three days later, Tung met members of The Frontier, a pro-democracy organization, for the first time. We made a similar request and got the same negative response. We were told having direct elections in 2007 and 2008 would not be in the territory's interest nor in China's long-term interest.
Refusing to give up, I pressed Tung again when he attended a LegCo question-and-answer session last Tuesday. I said I failed to understand why a government elected by universal and equal suffrage in the special administrative region (SAR) could be detrimental to the country's national security, social stability and prosperity. I again asked him to back the people's demand for direct elections in 2007 and 2008.
Tung said Hong Kong is part of China and we must not only look at things from the SAR's point of view. He said LegCo members should understand the international environment and Beijing's determination to defend the country's territorial integrity. This is the clearest hint about the link between a democratic Hong Kong and the question of secession. Such misguided views have been expressed by Beijing before and Tung is merely toeing that line.
These insensitive remarks show that Tung has little time for the wishes of the people. On July 1, half a million people braved intense heat and humidity to march for hours demanding direct elections in 2007 and 2008. The peaceful and dignified demonstration exploded the myth that Hong Kong people do not care about politics and democracy and that they are very pragmatic, meaning if a decision has been taken, particularly by the central government, they will not press the demands anymore.
Many people were stunned by the overwhelming turnout because the march had the single objective of fighting for direct elections, which Beijing has categorically rejected. Tung not only has a duty to reflect the people's concerns to the central government, but should persuade the leaders in Beijing to heed the Hong Kong people's wishes and aspirations.
To our dismay, Tung said he has checked with the central government and was told he has no power to reopen the issue, so he cannot make further representation to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC).
This incident reinforces the widely held impression that he merely does what he is told by Beijing.
Tung's meetings with the pro-democracy camp are part of the government's response to the tense political atmosphere. At the beginning of the year, the pro-Beijing camp launched a savage attack on pro-democracy legislators for being unpatriotic. The community became bitterly divided.
In April, the NPCSC reinterpreted the Basic Law and ruled out democratic elections in the SAR for 2007 and 2008. Such high-handedness caused an uproar in the community and the atmosphere became even more explosive. Many of these machinations were related to Beijing's twin worries -- a big turnout for the march on July 1 and a pro-democracy majority in LegCo after the Sept. 12 election.
In order to sway public opinion, the central government offered economic sweeteners to the SAR, believing that most Hong Kong people only care about making money. When that did not work, Beijing became more conciliatory, even offering to allow banned pro-democracy politicians to visit the mainland.
There is no doubt that Hong Kong people want harmony and do not seek confrontation with Bei-jing. However they also want democracy -- and politicians who will not abandon their ideals. Like the rest of the pro-democracy movement, The Frontier is in favor of dialogue with Beijing. But there should be no conditions.
Apart from talking to Beijing, the pro-democracy camp would also like to open dialogue with the business community. For many years, both the British colonial government and the SAR government have adopted a hostile attitude towards political parties. They claim political parties represent narrow sectoral interests and that only the government can represent the public interest. Taking their cue from the authorities, many business and professional people opted to marginalize and even denigrate political parties.
For society to reach a consensus and move forward with constitutional reforms, all sectors must be engaged in dialogue, and Beijing should remain on the sidelines, acting as a referee.
Beijing's decision to ban pro-democracy politicians for 15 years was intended as a signal to the community to reject these people. Many business and professional people are afraid to associate with pro-democracy politicians, fearing that any contact with them would antagonize Beijing.
However, many Hong Kong voters continue to vote for pro-democracy candidates, but the people also want these people to be able to talk to Beijing and to the business community. Such a reaction is natural and legitimate and the people are not trying to have it both ways. The ball is now in the central government's court. The people wait with bated breath for Beijing's next move.
Emily Lau is a Hong Kong legislator and convenor of The Frontier.
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