Pseudo-democratic policy
The recent “campaign” for the small-circle “(s)election” of the Hong Kong chief executive witnessed a lot of interference by Beijing. Virtually everyone who commented on this saw it as being destructive of the principle of “one country, two systems” (一國兩制) (OCTS), assuming that OCTS is somehow a bulwark against intrusion on Hong Kong’s “core values.” I think this view is mistaken.
OCTS is a formula that diminishes autonomy, not augments it. Under OCTS, Beijing is supposed to interfere and OCTS facilitates that interference. The surprise would be the absence of such interference.
Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) called the Hong Kong Basic Law his “creative masterpiece” and said that OCTS is attributed to the Marxist-Leninist dogma of “dialectical and historical materialism.” Within the dialectic, the political liaison between Hong Kong and Beijing is dynamic but not equal. The center manipulates the “actual situation” of the periphery in perpetual tension (historical materialism).
As Karl Marx put it, the connections within this dialectic “must be forced to dance.” This is how stability and security are maintained. Some writers refer to this as “connecting doors.” Some of these are back doors. Few of them are as visible as the electoral meddling in Hong Kong, but they are nevertheless real.
Deng asked his party comrades: “Who decides which of the classic international principles of communism are applicable to China?” We do, he answered. In this view, “forcing the dance” does not constitute interference or meddling at all.
This model of OCTS predicts that the center’s influence will intensify as time goes by until ultimately, Hong Kong will assimilate to the image of Beijing, however that image evolves. The Basic Law is a socialist document. Hong Kong’s supposed “high degree of autonomy,” as well as the promises of universal suffrage by “gradual and orderly progress,” democratization, judicial independence, freedom of expression, academic freedom and a host of other concerns, must always be understood in this context.
As history speeds toward the summer of 2047 (the 50-year term limit given by the Basic Law), and as rights and freedoms, like Hong Kong’s autonomy, continue to wither away, the inevitability of this predictive model will be determined.
It is reasonable to assume that applying OCTS or any similar “connecting door,” such as the “one country, two areas” (一國兩區) policy, to Taiwan would yield the same result.
Robert J. Morris
Hong Kong
Holding the editorial line
Is there Google in the land of Cilliers Landman (Letters, April 26, page 8)?
Landman accuses the Taipei Times of not reporting on rising international oil prices and solely blaming the Ma administration for raising gas prices. Yet the editorial line on the price hikes has been consistent — that they are necessary but that the Ma administration has handled them incompetently.
See, for example, the editorials of April 12, 14, or 18. The April 14 editorial is especially good, instancing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) price hikes and noting that cheap, subsidized electricity is a relic of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMIT) industrial policy.
Landman also says the Chen administration sunk CPC Corp, Taiwan (CPC) so deeply into debt “it took them years to recover.” According to CPC’s 2011 financial statement, easily found on the Internet, pre-tax income was positive in 2007, negative in 2008, and positive again 2009. Furthermore, the ratio of current assets to liabilities is lower for the 2008-2010 period than the 2006-7 period. Landman’s claims are sheer fantasy.
“Had the previous administration increased the price, I have no doubt you would have supported it,” argues Landman, once again Google-challenged.
The Chen administration did increase prices via the floating price mechanism until August 2007, when it suspended floating prices. The Taipei Times editorialized about this on Aug. 2, 2007, noting that Chen had “one eye on the upcoming elections” and arguing that the public should accept that gas and electricity prices in Taiwan are too low. CPC finished 2007 in the black.
Finally, Landman ineptly regurgitates KMT propaganda about both the economy and former president Chen. Taiwan was not “ruined economically” under Chen’s rule.
From 2006 until the end of the Chen administration in mid-2008, economic growth was above 4.5 percent. Moreover, Chen was not “stealing millions of dollars from the public,” he was found innocent of embezzling the special fund.
Try using Google, Mr Landman.
Michael Turton
Taichung
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS