Safety in Hong Kong
On Jan. 29, Hong Kong authorities said that they would engage with local and foreign groups in a one-month consultation process regarding Article 23 of the Basic Law.
Under the law, crimes such as treason, insurrection, espionage, destructive activities endangering national security and external interference would be punished. In particular, when it comes to national security, any act endangering Hong Kong’s economic and social development and collusion with foreign forces would be considered a crime.
In other words, if the Hong Kong authorities believed that someone has spread information unfavorable to Hong Kong’s economic development, the person would be punished according to the Basic Law. Information about China’s youth unemployment data would be considered to fall under that category. Starting from Aug. 15 last year, the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics said that it would stop releasing unemployment data specific to different age groups.
Obviously, Beijing knows that once the actual numbers are revealed, its economy would definitely be jeopardized and worsen.
Once Article 23 is implemented, any information supposedly endangering Hong Kong’s economy would be banned. The investment environment would become highly opaque for international businesses. Entrepreneurs would be unable to access a range of information and hence could not make accurate decisions.
Moreover, they would constantly be at risk of breaking the law for no apparent reason, given that Article 23 of the Basic Law is vague and ambiguously defined. The trial of pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai (黎智英) has proved that Hong Kong’s judicial system is not functioning at all. Recently, a great number of foreign investors have left. It is widely acknowledged that Hong Kong is no longer Asia’s top financial center.
As for the crime of collusion with foreign forces, overseas political commentators are targeted by Hong Kong authorities. A British political commentator based in Germany, Martin Oei (黃世澤), on his own YouTube channel called on Hong Kongers to “lie down,” urging them not to cast their ballots in the district council elections. The court then issued an arrest warrant for him. Oei’s post was shared on Facebook by a Hong Konger, who was then accused of inciting people not to vote.
Clearly, Hong Kong authorities have put Article 23 into practice. Oei and the person who shared his post became examples to intimidate and silence overseas Hong Kongers.
With Article 23, the enforcement authorities in Hong Kong would be able to carry out their actions abroad. Officials also confirmed that special teams would be established to promote the law. The target is obviously international political commentators who care about Hong Kong. The law would allow China to interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs.
When Beijing can no longer silence others, it is likely that Hong Kong authorities would build an online firewall just as China did. Then, even a virtual private network could not be used.
It is advised that Taiwanese living in Hong Kong return to Taiwan or go elsewhere. Nobody can make a fortune in Hong Kong anymore. Now, the risk of Internet censorship is in sight.
Moreover, there are no Taiwanese officials in the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Hong Kong. If a Taiwanese is in danger, they might not be properly assisted and protected.
Taiwanese should avoid going to Hong Kong because they might end up like Morrison Lee (李孟居), who served a 22-month prison sentence in China on espionage charges.
Li Guangzhi,
a Hong Kong national
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS