If we regard the way people take to the streets as a showcase of a nation's democracy, the recent protests against the WTO in Hong Kong have sent a message to the international community. Unfamiliar with international protesters, the Hong Kong riot police mobilized armored vehicles, tear gas and water cannons to disperse protesters trying to break through the barricades. Many protesters were arrested, unsettling many WTO delegates.
In recent years, many countries have attempted to resolve trade differences via the WTO. However, the media have also given extensive coverage to anti-globalization activists eager to voice their displeasure. Although tens of thousands of Hong Kongers protested proposed amendments to Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law and the inability to elect their chief executive, that performance seemed rather passive in comparison -- chanting a few slogans before dispersing, rather like weekenders out for a stroll.
On the other hand, quite a few of the WTO protesters were well-trained and experienced. South Korea is a nation where people often take to the streets and its democracy was built upon such protests. Moreover, South Korea's student and labor unions are even more radical than its farmers. It is quite routine for them to protest against Japan, the US and their own government. In Hong Kong, South Korean farmers only made a token demonstration and called it quits when they felt their opinions had been heard, because they did not want to embarrass the police.
Taiwan's democracy was also won via street protests. And although protests in Taiwan tend to be noisy and rumbustious affairs, they always hold back from the point of bloody confrontation, for whoever incites direct violent conflict will not be tolerated by the media or the public. Therefore, Taiwanese protest groups in Hong Kong exercised restraint and did not look particularly active.
At the beginning of December, 200,000 people in Hong Kong marched to demand direct elections. Some warned that the demonstrators would be rioters, and seemed unaware that demonstrations are part of daily life in democratic countries. Last week's anti-WTO demonstrations were a revelation, and might even have altered the perception of democracy for many Hong Kongers. Democracy is about hearing the people's voice, and demonstrating is one way of making that voice heard. If people are the masters, then it is for them to directly elect their representatives and administrative chief. Reducing the number of appointed assembly members and calling it reform is not substantive and shows that the Hong Kong government still has a long way to go to achieve real democracy.
Although the WTO protest scenes were dramatic, this was certainly preferable to the recent deaths of protesters in Dongzhou in Guangdong Province at the hands of the Chinese police. But during the Hong Kong protests, the authorities arrested 14 people on charges of illegal assembly. This is quite ridiculous as thousands of people were involved. If these 14 were in fact guilty of rioting or assaulting a police officer, then of course charges should be pressed. That's how other democratic countries handle demonstrations. Otherwise, they should be released. How the authorities handle the aftermath of last week's protests and the subsequent treatment of the 14 prisoners looks likely to provide further insight on the prospects for further democratic development in the territory.
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