The message from Taiwan's strange election

March 30, 2004                                                                   

Taiwan is China's largest democracy. 13 million people voted last weekend in a head on first past the post race that was won by the shortest of margins by Chen Shui-bian. The turn out was 80%. People want to be able to determine how they are governed and who by.

Chen won the previous election in 2000; but he won that in a three horse race where the combined vote of the opposition was 2.6 million people ahead of Chen. But the opposition was split and Chen was elected. This time the opposition united against Chen. The real story here is that he polled 1.5 million more votes than he did four years ago. He may have only won by 30,000 votes or 0.22 per cent. But in reality he has a stronger support than after the last election and already the united opposition is looking less than united.

The opposition is complaining of dirty tricks, of vote rigging. They are complaining that somehow the attempted assassination of Chen was somehow rigged to earn him a sympathy vote.

Stuff and nonsense. The KMT accusing the Democratic Progressive Party of electoral fraud really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Even with the support of Chinese money, media and unsubtle threat the KMT still look like yesterday's men.

With or without the shooting mainstream Taiwanese opinion appears to be maturing in the direction of self determination. The realty is that however independent the Taiwanese may consider themselves the island state is economically dependent on the mainland. China is Taiwan's largest export market. Over 60% of Taiwan's technology production is now "made in China". The status quo will likely remain the status quo so long as there is no overt sabre rattling on either side.

Maybe China has to learn that democratic processes can support progress and change. That democracy can give stability because people can effect peaceful change. Maybe Taiwan is an example that Hong Kong should be allowed to follow. I wish.

The first Sinonaut

15 October 2003

There are few certainties about today's proud achievements from China. But be certain that the name of Yang Liwei will be long part of China's history as Gagarin is to Russia and Glenn and Shepherd to the Americans.

China today became only the third nation in the world to successfully launch a man into space. It is a massive achievement for a proud and increasingly powerful nation. At 9 a.m. Beijing time Wednesday, the Shenzhou-5 spacecraft, atop a China-made Long March II F carrier rocket, blasted off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in northwest China and sent Yang into the preset orbit in less than 10 minutes.

The first steps were tentative; the scheduled live broadcast of the launch was cancelled, presumably in case of disaster. The launch was shown on news bulletins some 40 minutes after take off.

Don't doubt also the prestige and the puffing out of chests that comes with this launch. "This is the glory of our great motherland," said Chinese President Hu Jintao after China's space program supervisors declared the launch a "complete success" at 9:42 a.m.

It was also probably the world's longest traveled Chinese take-away since On his space menu were typical Chinese dishes like spicy-and-sour shredded meat and sliced chicken meat, traditional desserts like "Eight-Treasure-Rice" and a drink of Chinese herbal tea.

Beyond all the official media hype in China there must be a real sense of joy and wonder among many Chinese that their country, which they have been taught has been downtrodden for 150 years, had joined another elite club.

Yang is only the 431st person to be sent into space. The fact that he is on a Chinese launched rocket must raise anticipation and some anxiety about future space exploration and the purpose of space missions. The US space program has major problems with financing and near obsolete shuttle equipment. The Russian program is in decline. Will China become a partner to the International Space Station program. Are the Chinese truly committed to exploration or are their motives more focused towards military possibilities.

There is at least the tantalising possibility of a new space race as the US seeks to develop a reliable lower costs launcher than the shuttle.

Hong Kong's crisis and Beijing's dilemma

9 July 2003

In a land where saving face is ingrained in the culture have no doubts how much face Tung Chee-hwa has lost.

And the speed with which he has been dumped by his erstwhile allies in the Liberal Party and the the

Tung has withdrawn the proposed security legislation that was demanded by Beijing. In doing so he has undermined his authority and embarrassed his master in Beijing who hand-picked him for the Chief Executive's role in Hong Kong.

It is a massive victory for all the decent, hard working and articulate people of Hong Kong. It is a vote for reason and common sense. It is a belated acknowledgement that the people have a right to be heard and that their concerns deserve attention.

In demanding that the puppet government (that is what it was) push through the security legislation Beijing clearly misread the mood of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing has woken up to the fact that the people of Hong Kong are not as compliant as the mainland Chinese and that they cannot be bullied into submission.

What Beijing does next will say much about the future relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong and much about their commitment to one country, two systems.

In a western democracy, the government of Hong Kong would have massively lost a no confidence vote; and election would be held and a new government elected. Hong Kong is now rudderless. The Chief Executive has seen his first officers scurry away into their political lifeboats. He is left on the bridge, maybe with the faithful and foolish Regina IP, and they will be the last to leave. The biggest hope is that they do not go down with the ship.

After all the collapse of the security act and the clear statement of independence and confidence by the people could be just the shot in the arm that Hong Kong needs to bring foreign confidence and investment back into Hong Kong.

Will China replace Mr. Tung? The Basic Law makes no provision for a leader to step down mid term other than allowing him to resign for "ill-health or other reasons". But this will embarrass China's leaders who have publicly stood by and praised Mr. Tung.

And what precedent does this outburst of public disaffection set for the mainland. Suddenly it appears that at least in Hong Kong people want a greater say in how they are governed. Maybe one of the results of the SARS outbreak is people have discovered that there is more to living life than making money.

My guess is that in three to six months Tung Chee-hwa will be too ill to continue in office. He will get a nice fat pension and retire. It is far less clear who would replace him. His successor will then pass a significantly watered down anti subversion law early in 2004.

One lesson that the people of Hong Kong have learned now is that they can make a difference and they can cause change to happen. They should never be under-estimated again. Theirs has been a wake-up call not just to Hong Kong and China but a call that could reverberate around Asia.

Get out, be heard, speak up while you still can

Protest in Hong Kong on 1 July 2003

30 June 2003

On July 1, the sixth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, there will be the biggest demonstration to date against the new security laws being proposed by the government of Hong Kong under Article 23 of the basic law, and likely to be passed into legislation on July 9 2003.

Perhaps the most telling reason to condemn this new legislation is the wave of protests that have been raised through professional and religious groups. Many of Hong Kong's' most articulate, educated and thoughtful people see the potential damage that this legislation can cause, and understand how its provisions can be used to muzzle their own voices and to take away their freedoms.

Academics. journalists, church representatives, lawyers, human rights representatives have all articulated their concerns and will be at the forefront of the protests.

For the business tycoons who run Hong Kong and who dominate its unelected government this legislation is a part of their duty to China and continues to smooth the way for their trading links and investments. These people are too busy making money to understand the potential dangers of this unhappy legislation.

If you are in Hong Kong and have any love for the city and its people you should join this protest on 1 July.

Timetable of Events:

Hong Kong's flawed law

Editorial; The Guardian, 30 June 2003

Repression in Hong Kong

International Herald Tribune 28 June 2003

Taking advantage of preoccupation in Hong Kong with the SARS epidemic, the territory's pro-Beijing government has been pushing along a noxious national security bill that would leave the territory vulnerable to the sort of political repression common on the Communist mainland. It may be too late to block the law, which looks likely to pass on July 9. But it should be made clear to Beijing that nobody buys its justifications for this repressive measure.

Some governments, including the United States and Canada, have already protested, as have many human-rights organizations, prompting predictable squawks from Beijing against meddling in its internal affairs. That can hardly be said of opponents in Hong Kong, who turned out in the tens of thousands on the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising, and now plan an even larger protest against Article 23 for July 1, the anniversary of the turnover of Hong Kong. The resistance draws on an expanding coalition of human-rights groups, independent politicians, trade unions, journalists, academics and students. They have correctly identified the bill as a challenge to their autonomy and fundamental freedoms, and as an attempt to impose China's arbitrary legal system on Hong Kong through the back door.

China argues that Article 23 is not much different from the laws of some democratic states. That may be so, but democratic societies have checks and balances that China and other Communist states do not; in the latter, national security laws have long been a primary tool for silencing critics and subverting freedoms. The fate of Falun Gong is but one example. Another is SARS: Under the new law, the dogged newspapers of Hong Kong might have been forced into the same disgraceful and dangerous silence as the mainland press.

China's rulers have also portrayed Article 23 as a critical test of national sovereignty. It is really an assault on the freedoms they promised to respect in Hong Kong for 50 years. Even if the bill cannot be stopped, it should be widely exposed and condemned for the repressive measure it really is.

The Long March to Capitalism

9 November 2002

In his long address to the 16th Party Congress of the Communist Party in Beijing President Jiang Zemin opened wide the party's doors to accept the monied and the elite as party members and leaders.

The party needs the support of private enterprise to retain its iron hand over  the country. At the same time private enterprise needs a stable government that will drive growth from within a stable environment. The two sides need eachother. Protection of income and protection of private property are watchwords for the new China. A far cry from the cultural revolution of less than forty years ago.

Conspicuous consumption is everywhere in the modern Chinese cities of the East Coast. People have money and have no qualms flaunting it.

But since unprecedented economic growth and improvements in living standards will fortify the position of the communist party in China no-one should expect any change in the political landscape. One party rule is here in China for a long time.

Some statistics from the Guardian newspaper are symptomatic of the new China:

Almost 1.5m people in Shanghai are without running water and the World Bank estimates that 18.5% of the Chinese population live on less than $1 a day

President Jiang's Texas BBQ

24 October 2002

On Friday 25 October President Jiang Zemin will crown his political career with a BBQ.

Do not doubt the importance of the symbolism. Jiang is being taken into the family home of the President of the United States of America. President Putin and Prime Minister Blair have signed the Crawford Ranch guest book. Now it is the turn of the Chinese President. For the President and for China this may be the country's coming of age as a world power.

Certainly links between China and the USA are strong now. Even the rhetoric over issues such as Taiwan, Falun Gong and Human Rights has been toned down dramatically.

It is likely that China will acquiesce and accept the latest US proposal to the UN security council. China takes its new and elevated status on the world stage seriously. China wants to work within the UN to deal with the Iraq issue but also recognises that Iraq's continued flouting of UN resolutions weakens the position of the UN and has to be dealt with.

China will likely push for a similar UN led approach to North Korea.

The two leaders have a one hour meeting, a lunch and a tour of the ranch in Mr. Bush's pick up truck. Their meeting will have largely already been scripted behind the scenes as will any joint communique. 

Strong US/China relations will be a force for stability for this and future generations. Jiang will take, and probably deserves, much of the credit for the current goodwill. I hope they enjoy their lunch.

The pragmatic solution to media censorship in China

26 August 2002

There are two recent and interesting examples of the western nations, academics and politicians expressing concerns about media censorship in China.

The number two broadcaster in Hong Kong has been given permission to broadcast into Guangzhou. And Yahoo has agreed to monitor its content on its mainland web site.

Lets start with Yahoo. They (and other mainland web sites) have agreed to monitor their site for information that might "jeopardise state security, and disrupt social stability". Sure Yahoo have made a public statement; but it is no more than a public statement of their intent to follow the law of the land. About the same as a US based CEO saying that he and hic company will abide by the laws of the land.

So Yahoo subscribers in China will not be able to read about Falun Gong; but they will still see news and information from all over the world to China's 38 million internet users.

The Chinese authorities are wise enough to know that they cannot monitor every chat room, every search. Instant messaging will be a new way of organising and spreading news.

Western media and news organisations are not going to surrender the opportunity of China to local companies. Dow Jones, Reuters, CNN all operate in China; they do so in accordance with the laws of the land. But they are not in any way acting as pawns of the authorities. They may be cautious in some of their reporting; but over time there are fewer and fewer restrictions on their reporting and on their businesses.

What will matter for all news and online organisations is the protection of users, customers and news sources.

For ATV the issue was much simpler; as the number two broadcaster in Hong Kong they were very very very eager to access the mainland market. TV signals are centrally monitored and transmitted. The censor will cut any signal if they believe the content is sensitive. And ATV will live with that because the advertising revenues that can be generated from this new market outweigh delicate concerns over content. And, in the end, the fact that Guangzhou's residents are enjoying Ally McBeal or The West Wing (even with the occasional cut) may give them interesting insights into the west; or may be good entertainment.

The Taiwan debate - a view from Taipei and a lesson from Hong Kong.

(from the Taiwan Times - 5 August 2002)
 

Hong Kong's fate a cautionary tale

By Lee Chang-kuei §õªø¶Q

In the five years following the implementation of the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong, the world has witnessed the decline of democratic freedoms and economic competitiveness in the former British colony.

Beijing's "colonization" of Hong Kong has resulted in a serious case of cultural lag on the part of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The government is in reality a colonial government serving an authoritarian central government. The Pearl of the Orient has fallen. The people of Hong Kong know that Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (¸³«ØµØ) is nothing more than a lap dog for the Chinese Communist Party. And for people of Taiwan, the fifth anniversary of the handover was a painful day.

Before 1997, Hong Kong was considered the Pearl of the Orient, with prosperous and booming service, finance and tourism industries. After it was handed over to China in 1997, Hong Kong's status began to disintegrate. In 1996, Hong Kong managed to attract as much as 13 million tourists. The number began to gradually decline thereafter. This has much to do with the fact that, beginning in 1997, the former colony started to lose its cultural allure, which featured a unique blend of British and Chinese cultural traits. Tourists now prefer to get a taste of Chinese culture in places such as Beijing and Shanghai.

To the people of Hong Kong, the city no longer holds any attractions either. Nowadays, they work five days a week, and then, rather than engage in leisure consumption in Hong Kong on weekends, they go on a mere one-hour-long commute to the Shenzhen and Zhujiang for traveling and leisure activities.

The number of Hong Kong travelers to China totaled about 3 million in 1997, while the number reached 5 million last year. The amount of money these visitors took with them to China last year was possibly as much as HK$500 billion. They have no money to spare on investing and developing the territory.

Consumption is the most fundamental basis of economic development. It is also the index of the prosperity of the domestic market. Since the handover, Hong Kong's consumption market became bleak. Replacing it is the cheap consumption offered by newly rising Chinese cities nearby.

The truth of the matter is the business environment is making it difficult for manufacturers and the work force to remain in Hong Kong. Instead, they are forced to seek opportunities in the mainland. While workers are more inclined to move to Guangdong Province, the dimming of Hong Kong's financial and business sectors has forced an exodus of business leaders to areas in and around Shanghai and Zhejiang.

Moreover, while Hong Kong citizens are spending their money in the mainland -- or moving there altogether -- the mainland Chinese who are emigrating to Hong Kong have very little money to spend. They bring neither consumption nor professional skills, yet compete with locals for jobs accepting lower wages, helping raise the unemployment rate to as high as 7.7 percent.

Social changes and the econo-mic dependency of Hong Kong have caused the investment environment of the city to deteriorate. The real estate market and the stock market have both declined on a large scale. The occupancy rate of the hotel industry is only 60 percent. Assets and capital have depreciated by half, the retail sector is barely hanging on and the debts of small and mid-size firms are rising sharply. This is all due to erroneous policies of the territory's government.

The decline in the investment environment has caused the people of Hong Kong to lose faith in their administration. Nor do they identify with the chief executive appointed by Beijing, even though he is a native of Hong Kong. The change in market characteristics has made it im-possible for the investment mar-ket to regain vitality. Hong Kong has thus become a pool of stagnant water. The people of Hong Kong no longer put their hope in the territory.

Beijing is reportedly planning on developing Shenzhen into the pivot of the Hong Kong and Zhu-jiang service market. The hope is that, as result of Zhujiang's proximity to Hong Kong, the large number of foreign firms with regional headquarters and offices in the territory can be tempted to relocate to Shenzhen. In other words, the plan is to have Shenzhen replace Hong Kong's role. This is just one example of the way the territory is rapidly being replaced by newly rising Chinese coastal cities.

People of Hong Kong now believe that going to China is the only way out and their sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment has grown. Under British rule, the people of Hong Kong were proud of Hong Kong. But since the handover, they have been stripped of their dignity.

Hong Kong and Taiwan have the commonality of both being tied up with China politically and they both slant toward China economically. Together, they made possible the development of the Chinese coastal market.

Contributing to economic development in China has been Beijing's success in dealing with inflation, which kept labor prices along the Chinese coast down. But Beijing then turned around and used all of that revenue on military expansion. At the same time, it continues to lure capital, technology and manpower from Taiwan and Hong Kong, indirectly weakening the investment and capital markets in the two areas. Hong Kong's economic slant toward China, while its capital continues to pour into China, is creating a serious capital vacuum in the territory.

In the past five years, Hong Kong has poured US$150 billion into China, and Taiwan some US$120 billion. China has quickly become a rising world economic power. In contrast, Taiwan and Hong Kong have fallen into the quick sand of economic reces-sion. What have Hong Kong and Taiwan gotten out of their China investment? The people of Hong Kong don't have any more chance to ponder that question. But, the people of Taiwan still have time.

The people of Taiwan can see for themselves how the "one country, two systems" policy has made Hong Kong nothing more than a Chinese colony that Beijing is sucking up to enrich China. It has made China the center of the world manufacturing industry. It has turned ancient Shanghai into the trade, financial and economic center of the world. The once- deserted Shenzhen also became a world-class industrial center. The People's Liberation Army has also become the hub of the power of terror.

China promised the people of Hong Kong that there would be no change to their way of life for 50 years. How much longer can the territory hang on is something that that the US and Europe are closely watching. It is believed that the colonialization of Hong Kong under the "one country, two systems" will prematurely end the way of life that the people of Hong Kong have always known. The decay and erosion have long begun.

Now that Tung has been re-elected as the chief executive, "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong will more than likely head for "one country, one system" at an increasingly rapid pace. What other result can one possibly expect when, in the past five years, Beijing has consistently dealt with Hong Kong's economic and political problems based on the "one China" principle?

Under the circumstances and in view of Hong Kong's experience, it is truly puzzling why the KMT and PFP continue to demand that President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) accept the "one country, two systems" policy and open up direct links. Doing so would in essence be a total surrender to Beijing. Taiwan would ultimately become a mere special administrative region or a Chinese colony, just like Hong Kong.

Are these two parties bent on destroying Taiwan? THe KMT and PFP should be reminded of the Chinese proverb which cautions that "negotiating with the tiger for its hide" (»Pªê¿Ñ¥Ö) can only bring devastation. The same may be said about Taiwan's economic slant toward China and its investment there.

I suggest that the PFP and the KMT each convene a national party congress to hold serious discussions concerning the "one China" principle and "one country, two systems." These two parties should no longer lie to and deceive the people of Taiwan. They should re-draft their party policy guidelines.

Moreover, the Taiwan government should also scrap the bud-get allocated for the National Unification Council. The council is a body entirely outside the constitutionally prescribed form of government structure to begin with. This is not to mention the fact that the body is in no way constructive to the stability and development of Taiwan.

Western democracies have long held that helping China's economic development would lead to its democratization, following the pattern of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. But this dream will never be realized in China.

China will never change its political and social structure. This is because the Chinese military is not only extremely resistant to progressive change, but is also extremely powerful. Its power derives from the fact that it is needed to "maintain peace" in areas such as East Turkestan and Tibet, and whoever is the Chinese president must also rely on its support of it and the support of the Chinese Communist Party. No amount of democratic values and ideals on the part of individuals such as Vice Premier Qian Qichen (¿ú¨äµ`) could ever lead China onto a path of democratization.

On the surface, China may appear much more democratized than before, but its phony democracy is intended to lure capital and technologies. The ultimate goal of China is still regional domination, to say the least, and is really to defeat US hegemony. These ambitions can be glimpsed by looking at China's military modernization and arms buildup.

As for direct links, their opening would just sink Taiwan to the bottom of the Taiwan Strait. Direct links would only further speed up the outpouring of Taiwan's capital, technology and manpower to China, devastating Taiwan's economic development in the process.

China has never considered Taiwan to be an independent sovereign country. Therefore, it continues to handle the issue of direct links from a "one country, two systems" standpoint. The closer the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are, the less secure Taiwan is. Direct links would only increase Taiwan's economic slant toward China and would also further erode Taiwan's political independence and autonomy.

Lee Chang-kuei is the president of the Taipei Times and a professor emeritus of National Taiwan University.

Taiwan - the China response

6 August 2002

My loyal reader(s) deserves to know what happened next. Well China's official response was rather muted, if predictable...denouncing Chen Shui-bian's remarks as having the potential to lead Taiwan to disaster. To reinforce the military point, a series of military exercises involving the Chinese air force, navy and army will start later this month along the coastline nearest to Taiwan.

Taiwan - a proud nation or a proud province?

5 August 2002

I have often thought that I should not give opinions on sensitive issues that I know too little about. I was upset by today's very loyal (lets protect Hong Kong's flagging business interests) SCMP editorial.

On Friday Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian called for legislation to be passed allowing a public referendum to determine Taiwan's future. In a speech he said that "Taiwan cannot become a second Hong Kong or Macau...it is an independent sovereign state".

China has claimed that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory since they split at the end of the civil war in 1949.

The SCMP declared the speech a serious error of judgment; stating his comments to be "reckless". The editorial expresses concerns for regional stability and for the pressure hat will now be placed on Sino-American relations.

Surely the answer for the SCMP is that we have to live with this. The issue of Taiwan may come to the forefront soon for various reasons summarised below. And Taiwan is not Hong Kong or Macau. It is not borrowed; there is no return by date. The people believe they are proud residents of an independent nation. They are articulate, educated, free and participate actively and enthusiastically in the democratic process.

Why is this important now;

There is a succession power struggle in Beijing. The PLA (the arch conservatives, rooted in history, supported by Li Peng) are pushing for the Chinese leadership to take a firmer line on Taiwan. The army and navy continue to upgrade at a ferocious pace. New Russian built submarines have been ordered (and these are not K19!).

The Chinese authorities have regularly refused to meet Taiwanese requests for formal discussions.

Taiwan is losing out in the game of buying international support. Nauru severed relations with Taiwan in favour of the PRC. They were bought - as Taiwan has previously done for so many other nations. Taiwan now has diplomatic ties with only 27 countries, none to be honest of diplomatic significance !

The USA has a conservative republican as President. In the end I do not expect the USA would ever intervene with troops in the event of an assault by the PRC on Taiwan. The USA would like the status quo maintained. But to support the one China policy while at the same time calling Taiwan an ally of the USA is to be burning both ends of the candle.

But Taiwan is economically dependent upon the PRC. Taiwanese human and capital investment in the PRC is huge. Neither side would willingly countenance the economic loss that would come with a possible or real military conflict.

With President Jiang due to saddle up and meet President Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch in October expect at least a greater escalation of words and vitriol !