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.
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS