On June 29, the top story on the Liberty Times’ front page was a report on a survey of Hong Kongers’ satisfaction with Chinese rule 14 years on. I am not going to comment on the contents of the article other than to say that it is rare to see a Taiwanese mainstream media outlet pay earnest attention to the developments in Hong Kong.
For various reasons, the rising strength of China has been a cause of both enthusiasm and worry for the people of Taiwan.
It has also set off a variety of discussions and expressions of concern.
What I find most surprising, however, is that Taiwanese do not understand, nor do they seem to have any interest in understanding, the situation in Hong Kong.
In January, veteran Hong Kong democracy activist Szeto Wah (司徒華) passed away. The news shook Hong Kong, and even made it into the pages of the New York Times. Still, I wonder how many Taiwanese know who Wah was?
Taiwanese in general are currently paying a lot of attention to the fact that Taiwanese universities are opening up to students from China, and many media outlets are busy interviewing Chinese students.
However, there are also many exchange students from Hong Kong in Taiwan.
How many of these media outlets are interviewing those students, asking for their opinions on the “one country, two systems” policy, or asking them about the effects of an increasingly strong China on Hong Kong?
I find this Taiwanese neglect of and indifference to Hong Kong bizarre.
In my view, Hong Kong’s development over the past 20 years provides the best reference and the best indicators for Taiwan as it tries to address its concerns about China’s growing strength.
The general view is that the so-called “one country, two systems” policy was proposed by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) as a way of solving the Hong Kong issue. As far as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was concerned, however, the real target of this policy was Taiwan.
The proposition and implementation of the policy in Hong Kong was merely an experiment with a very simple goal: To practice for the takeover of Taiwan.
Maybe it could be said that the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong has been an utter failure and that China’s unification strategy has had the opposite effect of what was intended.
That, however, is not a reason to neglect Hong Kong’s development.
First, everything the CCP has done in Hong Kong over the past 20 years has in fact been an experiment in preparation for how to deal with Taiwan. This means that Hong Kong offers a ready-made blueprint as we try to understand what concrete measures the CCP will take when dealing with Taiwan once the two sides initiate political, or even unification, talks. What reasons could Taiwan possibly have for neglecting to study Hong Kong’s development and recent history?
Second, the “one country, two systems” policy may appear to be a failure, but looked at from another perspective, it has been successful — Hong Kong is gradually becoming more similar to the Chinese mainland, as press freedom is restricted through self-censorship and the rights of the judiciary become increasingly circumscribed.
The people of Hong Kong know better than anyone else how all these changes are taking place.
This raises the question of whether Taiwan should not be more active in inviting representatives of all walks of life from Hong Kong to give detailed accounts of their experiences to the Taiwanese.
Third, Hong Kong also offers the best window on developments in China, not only politically speaking, but also economically speaking. Because it is about to become the experimental center for offshore business using the Chinese currency, Hong Kong will become the crucial observation point for Chinese capital flows and economic trends.
Over the past two decades, Hong Kong has experienced the impact of independent Chinese travelers and the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement — which is similar to Taiwan’s Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement. It is now Taiwan’s turn to deal with these same issues.
At a time when both Taiwan’s leaders and the general public are feeling uneasy, they forget that there is an excellent nearby example whose experience they can learn from — Hong Kong.
The shortsightedness was and is astonishing.
Wang Dan is a visiting assistant professor at National Cheng Kung University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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