Once a world-class territory for entrepreneurs and investors, Hong Kong is now in trouble. Its full integration into the Chinese autocratic system began with the implementation of the National Security Law last year.
Proclaiming to safeguard security without deterring investment, Beijing has imposed a top-down authoritarian rule, dictated public discourse with state-run media, and replaced civil service professionals with ideological loyalists and independent judges with pliable cronies.
The new security regime authorizes the local government and police to employ violence to silence dissent and elicit obedience from Hong Kongers. Even though Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) and her cronies are firmly in power, they are morally bankrupt and callous, losing the legitimacy that they desperately need to govern.
Much attention has focused lately on the prosecution of veteran democracy advocates and conscientious journalists, the purge of popularly elected opposition lawmakers, and a crackdown on press freedom. However, very little has been said about Hong Kong’s diminishing status as a non-sovereign subnational entity.
Hong Kong’s autonomy under China’s “one country, two systems” framework allows for special treatment in trade relations, export controls, sociocultural and educational exchanges. This unique status laid the foundation for bilateral treaties with the US and other countries with respect to consular affairs, taxation arrangements, aviation and extradition, as well as legal services.
Furthermore, Hong Kong has pursued para-diplomacy, holding memberships in the WTO, the WHO, APEC, IMF and the Financial Task Force on Money Laundering. In sports, Hong Kong remains active in the International Olympic Committee and FIFA.
The territory still has dozens of Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in major trading nations to lobby foreign governments, facilitate free-trade agreements and advance its commercial interests abroad.
However, when the new security order overrides the common law system, Hong Kong is constitutionally no different from any Chinese city. Should Hong Kong continue to receive separate treatment as opposed to other parts of China? Should Taiwan, the US, the UK, the EU and the rest of the world alter their bilateral agreements?
Should the West implement the sanctions against Hong Kong Police Force for human rights breaches? Should global firms and non-governmental organizations review the new dangers posed by the evolving crisis?
Another worrisome problem concerns the strategic role of Hong Kong amid intensifying rivalries between China and the world. Given its proximity to China, Hong Kong used to be a vibrant international financial hub, thanks to its openness, transparent regulatory environment, and commitment to the rule of law and civic liberties.
In the Maoist era, Beijing adhered to the principle of “long-term planning and full utilization,” and used Hong Kong to bypass international restrictions after the Korean War. The territory enabled China to pursue illicit trade, earn foreign currency, and acquire medical and technological resources.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Hong Kong contributed tremendously to China’s economic reforms. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the territory’s common law system has enabled many state-owned enterprises to attract foreign investments for sustainable development.
This history has been a model for other nations to treat Hong Kong separately from China and give it better terms. Hence, maintaining Hong Kong’s autonomy is beneficial to China’s national and local interests.
In a polarized world where Hong Kong is compelled to side with China, it is bound to lose its neutrality. Knowing that China continues to use the territory to access the outside world, the US has begun to restrict the transfer of international capital and sensitive technologies from Hong Kong to the mainland.
The new security arrangement has changed the rules of the game. Most importantly, it suspends the “one country, two systems” experiment that was widely thought to expire in 2047. When Hong Kong no longer offers the same legal protections and civil liberties that were once integral parts of autonomy, the world has to review and revise bilateral linkages and relations.
Coming to grips with this hostile international environment is crucial to recognizing the costs of violating the autonomous constitutional status.
For Hong Kong to survive and thrive, its political elites must return to a rules-based governance structure, end widespread police and judiciary abuses, and communicate with pro-democracy opposition groups and the civic sector.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS