Hong Kong writer and critic Leung Man-tao (梁文道) last week published an article on the Hong Kong-based Stand News Web site, entitled “S.F. Express operates one country, two systems.”
Leung described how, after purchasing some books during a trip to Taiwan, he asked his hotel to help him send them to Hong Kong by courier.
However, upon returning home, Leung received an e-mail from the hotel informing him that “due to recent controls imposed by the Chinese authorities on the contents of articles and books, three of your books could not be delivered by the courier.”
The books were Out of China: How the Chinese Ended the Era of Western Domination by Robert Bickers, The Great Debate by Yuval Levin and one of the Intellectual History series by various authors.
The incident made Leung question whether China’s “one country, two systems” model has already taken hold in Taiwan.
This is what used to happen during the Martial Law era, when disputes arose over the prohibition of books by state censors. For the same to happen in today’s democratic Taiwan would require large-scale manipulation and control. There are several questions about this episode that require answers.
First, was it the Taiwanese subsidiary of China-based S.F. Express Co or some other party that took upon itself to act as the White Terror-era Taiwan Garrison Command and prohibit the books from being shipped to Hong Kong?
As the criteria used by the courier exactly matched the rules stipulated by the Chinese government, the incident amounts to the infiltration and surveillance of a commercial courier company’s operational systems on Taiwanese soil, and more than just an exercise in “thought control.”
This begs the question: Who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and how do they wield so much power that they were able to breach a private individual’s privacy and property rights?
In addition to throwing up a legal debate on whether there has been an infringement of consumers’ rights, this unthinkable incident also raises questions regarding freedom of the press, as it involves the shipping of books across borders.
Who exactly has taken it upon themselves to check which books can be shipped from Taiwan to Hong Kong?
Remember the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997. The promise made by Beijing at the time that Hong Kong would enjoy 50 years without changes has without a doubt been broken, as people today see the editorial freedom of Hong Kong’s press compromised and booksellers kidnapped and taken to China to face trial — just two examples among a plethora of similar incidents.
In addition to the “one country, two systems” model having morphed into an authoritarian system, just as concerning is the Chinese speculative investment that has poured into Hong Kong — where it pushes up land and property prices — as well as the tsunami of spending by Chinese consumers that are creating a bubble economy. Today’s Hong Kong has lost its original vitality and been stripped of its soul.
The question is whether similar techniques are being used in some places in Taiwan and whether the public will be able to see through the inestimable losses that will come from allowing China to infiltrate Taiwan’s economy.
The economic bubble in Taiwan continues to be inflated by Chinese investment. One day — perhaps too late — people will awaken from their slumber and realize that Taiwan has been sleepwalking into “one country, two systems” authoritarianism, from which it will be extremely difficult to extricate itself.
The Leung incident demonstrates that “one country, two systems” is gradually morphing into “unification under one system.”
Fellow Taiwanese — especially book lovers — should carefully read Leung’s article and devour every word so as to fully understand the veracity of the watchword “Today Hong Kong, tomorrow Taiwan” — and that this nightmare vision is fast becoming a reality.
The “Communist bandits” really are knocking at the door.
Writing and books are the most foundational medium and most frequently used method for the transfer of information and ideas. Despite Taiwan’s democratization, today there is once again a malevolent force manipulating and censoring information behind the scenes.
The government should treat this incident with the seriousness it warrants and use all the means at its disposal to investigate and provide a clear explanation to both the Taiwanese public and the people of Hong Kong. In a democracy, people should expect nothing less.
Chang Hsun-ching is a writer.
Translated by Edward Jones
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)