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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS