【吳部長:我們將奮戰到底保衛國家】
外交部吳部長在「言論自由日」(4/7)的那一天,與駐台外媒記者茶敘。
吳部長開場致詞中提到,台灣堅守自由、民主、人權,是國際社會的良善力量,更是國際間可信賴的夥伴,並準備好對社會做出正面貢獻,在這充滿挑戰性的時刻,將會與理念相近國家與國際友人攜手堅定前行,唯有如此,更加自由、開放、及堅韌的印太地區才能實現。
面對記者提問台海安全議題,吳部長表示國家安全是我們的責任,如果自己不具防衛能力,也沒權利要求他國為我們犧牲,我國對於提升防禦能力議題都審慎以待,例如透過增加國防預算、重組軍事策略,並與美方請益防衛策略等。
「我們有自我防衛的決心,如需開戰絕不畏戰,並將奮戰到底保衛國家。」
.
.
.
In his address during a recent question and answer session with the foreign press corps, MOFA Minister Joseph Wu stated, "As a reliable partner that shares the values of #freedom, #democracy and the protection of #HumanRights, #Taiwan is ready to contribute as a #ForceForGood. At this challenging time, Taiwan stands in solidarity with its partners, and we hope our friends will also stand by the people of Taiwan. Together, we can realize a free, open, inclusive, and resilient #IndoPacific."
When asked about Taiwan's self-defense capability, Minister Wu stated that although he expects the US to continue providing defensive equipment to Taiwan, the ultimate responsibility for defense lies with Taiwan, saying “We are willing to defend ourselves to the very last day.”
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「defensive democracy」的推薦目錄:
- 關於defensive democracy 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於defensive democracy 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於defensive democracy 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於defensive democracy 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於defensive democracy 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於defensive democracy 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於defensive democracy 在 President Biden Signs Into Law S. 3522, the ... - YouTube 的評價
defensive democracy 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Time for a decisive battle (Lee Yee)
I wrote yesterday that “when the number of disqualified candidates reaches the maximum, the international community would come forth”. My friend reckons this a “new strategy”. Instead of a strategy, it is, I would say, the last option left by the National Security Law. Some agree, while others do not. A few raise questions or doubts. Here are my thoughts.
相關新聞:Paradoxical theory of Hong Kong organising U.S. riots (Lee Yee)
The US is leading the fight, with Japan coordinating with the foreign ministers of seven countries, the European Union claiming to indict China in the International Court of Justice in Hague, and the civilized world reacting way more intensely to the NSL than to the violation of human rights in Xinjiang concentration camp. Mike Pompeo’s comments, like “rogue behaviour” and “a choice between freedom and tyranny”, are harsh enough. All of this begs the question of what the US and the West are waiting for. With the NSL draft already released, why did Pompeo ask people to wait and see the results of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Election in September?
Although the NSL is disapproved by most of the civilized countries, both verbal censure and actual sanctions hinge on the LegCo Election in September - “an essential indicator”. But Why?
相關新聞:American violence v.s. Hong Kong violence (Lee Yee)
Pompeo has made it clear that if the CCP makes Hong Kong the same as Shanghai or Shen Zhen in the LegCo Election, the US will take Hong Kong as just another city in China, which means revoking all special treatment Hong Kong has been enjoying. Hong Kongers will be apparently victimized with a bitterly crumbling economy, even though Pompeo has not exactly said so.
Are Hong Kongers willing to be on the receiving end of it all? If Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp shows acceptance of the NSL at the nomination stage of the LegCo Election, and gets elected with considerable votes, then the message delivered to the US would be that Hong Kongers are prepared to surrender to tyranny. To this end, the US will stop short of being meddlesome while deploying all defensive moves against Hong Kong like what it has been doing against China.
However, if Hong Kongers take to the streets as fiercely as what they did in the anti-extradition protests last year, it will go without saying that these freedom fighters are willing to stand at the frontline of global defence against tyranny.
The referendum on NSL walkout held last Saturday, which was not well publicized and prepared, has projected a wrong message to the international community: not many people are up in arms over the NSL. In light of this, the message conveyed to the world by the LegCo Election is pivotal.
The abovementioned pertain to the external situation. Internally, I have come across many online comments made by those who have no confidence in the pan-democracy camp. They believe there must be some candidates from the pan-democracy camp who will approve of the NSL in a bid to get qualified for the election, and urge the public to vote for them for collective interests. Some say that the incumbent legislators did not even dare to object to the National Anthem Law, not to mention saying no to the NSL. They suspect that the pan-democracy camp would sign an election agreement in which supporting the NSL is part of the deal, or the candidates would answer yes when asked by returning officers whether they side with the NSL, in order to take a seat in the LegCo.
Soon comes the primary election for the pro-democracy camp, and their real stance will be revealed in the debates.
The predicament Hong Kong is facing looks grim. The pan-democracy camp might not succumb to the NSL for being qualified for the election. But in case they do, I hope all the young people who care about the future of Hong Kong enroll in the election at their discretion, regardless of the primary election results, prescriptions or ethics. The more candidates running for seats of the LegCo, the voice are more widely spread. Imagine the picture when hundreds of candidates are disqualified. How can the US stand by?
If the Chinese Communist Party decides to step back for a while, and selectively disqualify a few youngsters, will too many candidates on the list dilute the votes and as a result only few are elected? Don’t worry. If that happens, some candidates from the pro-democracy camp will have to drop out in an attempt to secure enough votes for the seats. In election forums, the pro-establishment camp is bound to lose in the debates about the NSL. That being said, anyone who blatantly disapproves of the NSL is almost certainly to be disqualified.
Tam Yiuchung has mentioned that candidates must sign an agreement to show support for the Basic Law, and pledge loyalty to Hong Kong SAR. It is harmless to do so with these two terms, yet in no circumstances should they sign an agreement to show support for the NSL for the reason that so many clauses in the NSL violate the Basic Law. Their refusal should be made public so that the whole world knows how many LegCo candidates are disqualified after saying no to the NSL.
The NSL for Hong Kong has already been deplored by all civilized countries. The focus should be put on the revolt against the NSL in this LegCo Election. Other slogans like “independence of Hong Kong”, “self-determination”, “five demands”, and “liberate Hong Kong”, etc. should give way to avoid losing focus. The US and the western civilization only focus on the NSL for Hong Kong. The LegCo election is a decisive battle that is worth a fight.
defensive democracy 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最讚貼文
【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】
***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated,將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像:以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文(https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/)翻譯成英文,鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演,在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***
中文精簡版本:https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/
Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.
In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.
The possibility of realizing legislative majority
Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.
The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?
Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.
Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.
Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority
To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.
While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.
Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.
Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.
Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP
What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.
Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.
The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution
Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.
Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.
The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.
All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.
https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw
defensive democracy 在 President Biden Signs Into Law S. 3522, the ... - YouTube 的推薦與評價
President Biden Signs Into Law S. 3522, the "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022". 9,875 views May 9, 2022 The White House ... ... <看更多>