臺灣的軍事自滿可能削弱美國支持

作者：Regan Chong 

美國總統唐納・川普（Donald Trump）大膽宣稱美國B-2匿蹤轟炸機已「完全徹底摧毀」伊朗核設施，短暫引發臺灣社會對美軍支援可信度的討論——具體來說，就是若臺灣面臨中國封鎖或入侵，美國是否也會有類似的反應。儘管多數民意仍保持理性，許多人對川普的迅速行動感到鼓舞與安心。然而，這種安心感的認知反而有可能導致對華府承諾本質與侷限的自滿情緒。

部分臺灣人將此與以色列與伊朗的衝突相比，但這類類比存在誤導性。臺灣的安全處境受獨特的文化與地緣政治條件所塑造，使得這種比較問題重重。

與許多以色列人將兵役視為國民身份的一部分、視服役為公民義務不同，臺灣社會對徵兵普遍缺乏興趣，導致徵兵制度士氣低落、社會評價不高。結果是，臺灣軍隊長期人力短缺，募兵成效不彰，軍校招生也面臨困境。這種文化態度——源自儒家重文輕武的傳統——進一步造成逃兵與逃避兵役的醜聞，屢見於報導，例如〈明星逃兵醜聞暴露臺灣後備軍力問題〉等。

與以色列形成鮮明對比的是：該國男女皆須服兵役，軍旅經歷象徵愛國，並且有助於未來職涯發展，尤其是曾服役於精銳或技術單位的退伍軍人，在科技與安全產業中廣受企業主青睞。

臺灣人對服兵役的文化抗拒，不僅影響自身防衛能力，也對未來能否爭取國際支援構成疑慮。2025年6月11日，在臺北一場民間兵棋推演中，美國太平洋司令部前司令布雷爾上將（Dennis Blair）指出，當臺灣展現出有能力與意願自我防衛時，美國介入的可能性「會大大提高」。同樣地，在2024年7月2日的《新政治家》（New Statesman）專訪中，國防戰略家柯爾比（Elbridge Colby）也明確表示，美國是否出手干預，將取決於臺灣「願意戰鬥的決心」。這些言論反映出美國戰略界愈來愈普遍的共識：美國的支持是有條件的。只有當臺灣展現出自我防衛的決心與能力時，華府才更可能行動。

伊朗耗費數十年嘗試發展核武，而中國早已擁有完整核三位一體打擊能力，且擁有足以對美國施加重大代價的經濟實力。美國對伊朗核設施的打擊，可以包裝為一場有限且可控的軍事行動；但臺海若爆發衝突，將是軍事、經濟與戰略全面升級的災難，恐引發全球性不穩定。

歷史經驗強調一項地緣政治常理：核武國之間往往避免直接衝突，更傾向透過代理人進行對抗。這種克制的戰略邏輯也體現在當今美國的外交政策中——優先選擇風險與代價可控的介入方式，避免捲入漫長且難以收場的衝突。這是冷戰時期如越戰（1965–1973）及近期如阿富汗戰爭（2001–2021）所留下的教訓：投入巨大代價，卻未獲得相應戰略利益。

美國承諾有限的歷史比比皆是。美軍撤出越戰，主要是因為美方傷亡慘重、國內反戰聲浪高漲，以及透過巴黎和平協議尋求體面退出；同樣地，美國也曾在1949年中國內戰期間，與1979年與中華民國斷交時，兩度撤回對臺軍事支持，轉而承認中共，以爭取冷戰戰略利益。

今日臺灣與當年南越有驚人相似之處：同樣面臨共產政權的生存威脅、同樣存在內部裂痕（南越是軍事不穩，臺灣是政治極化），也都深度依賴美國軍事支援。兩者都反映出美國承諾的脆弱性——從1973年美軍撤出越南，到2019年川普總統冷酷表示「臺灣得付錢才有美國保護」，無不顯示美方支持的條件性與可變性。

臺灣的自滿心理，還來自於過度樂觀的風險評估。例如「中國短期內不太可能發動全面入侵」的說法，近期已被美國國防部長皮特・海格瑟（Pete Hegseth）公開挑戰；還有「中國尚不具兩棲攻擊能力」的假設，也可能低估敵方準備進度。同時，大眾對美國情報紀錄的不穩定性也缺乏警覺。儘管美方成功預測了2022年俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，但卻未能預料1950年韓戰爆發與1975年西貢淪陷。

例如，美國中情局（CIA）1950年6月23日的《中央情報公報》指出北韓有可能發動大規模攻擊，但未明言即將爆發戰爭；這份報告發布僅兩天後，韓戰爆發。同樣地，1973年美軍完成撤出越南後，尼克森總統在電視演說中仍表示對南越國軍（ARVN）有信心。1973–1974年間美國國會的聽證會上，相關官員也一再聲稱南越能獨立防衛。甚至到了1975年4月，美國駐越大使館的內部電報仍表示共軍勝利「並非無法避免」。西貢失守前夕，威斯摩蘭將軍仍稱讚南越軍隊的防禦努力，而大使馬汀甚至拒絕撤僑，仍堅信「額外援助可以穩定局勢」。

2021年8月15日，阿富汗首都喀布爾落入塔利班之手，距離美軍撤軍不過數月。儘管2021年初美國情報界已認定塔利班威脅上升，但低估其攻勢速度——預估半年內才可能陷落，結果卻在數週內全面瓦解。

臺灣的安全防衛必須從國內開始。即使半導體優勢與武器裝備都重要，但不代表國防意志可以缺席。從國軍戰備、全民意識到軍事改革，都應成為全民運動的一環。自滿並非策略，而是阻礙臺灣獲得盟邦支持的最大障礙。

若臺灣期待世界在危機時刻伸出援手，首先必須展現出自己願意挺身而戰的決心。 

Regan Chong 是一位主張香港從中國獨立的香港人，並擔任「我是香港人連線」（Hong Konger Front）的聯絡人。

Taiwan’s Military Complacency Could Undermine U.S. Support

Taiwan’s Military Complacency Could Undermine U.S. Support 

By Regan Chong

 U.S. President Donald Trump’s bold assertion that U.S. B-2 stealth bombers had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities briefly prompted discussion in Taiwan about the credibility of American military support—specifically, whether a similar U.S. response could be expected if Taiwan faced a Chinese blockade or invasion. While public sentiment remained grounded, many viewed Trump’s swift response as encouraging and reassuring. However, such a perception of reassurance risks fostering complacency about the nature and limits of Washington’s commitments to Taiwan. 

Some in Taiwan drew comparisons to the Israel–Iran conflict, but these parallels are misleading. Taiwan’s security situation is shaped by distinct cultural and geopolitical realities that make such analogies problematic. 

Unlike Israelis, who often view military service as a civic duty tied to national identity, many Taiwanese remain culturally disinterested in conscription, leaving Taiwan’s conscription system plagued by low morale and limited public esteem. As a result, the military faces persistent understaffing, with recruitment for contract servicemen faltering and military academies struggling to fill seats. This cultural attitude—shaped by traditional Confucian preferences for scholarly pursuits over martial ones—contributes to recurring draft evasion scandals, generating headlines such as “Celebrity draft-dodging scandal lays bare problems with Taiwan’s crucial reservist force.”

The contrast with Israel is stark. In Israel, military service—mandatory for both men and women—not only symbolizes patriotism but also boosts career prospects, especially for veterans of elite or technical units. Employers value the skills, discipline, and networks gained, particularly in the tech and security sectors. 

This Taiwanese cultural reluctance to embrace military service raises serious concerns—not just for Taiwan’s own defense, but for its ability to garner international support in the event of a Chinese invasion. Speaking at a civilian war-gaming event in Taipei on June 11, 2025, former U.S. Pacific Command chief Admiral Dennis Blair stated that U.S. intervention becomes "much more likely" when Taiwan demonstrates both the ability and willingness to defend itself. Likewise, in a New Statesman interview published on July 2, 2024, defense strategist Elbridge Colby explicitly tied U.S. intervention to Taiwan’s will to fight. These remarks reflect a growing consensus among American defense experts: U.S. support is conditional. Washington is far more likely to act if Taiwan first proves both its willingness and capability to fight. 

Iran has struggled for decades in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons, while China already possesses a sophisticated nuclear triad and commands the economic heft to impose significant costs on the United States. A strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, ostensibly in support of Israel, could be framed as a limited and containable military operation. Escalation in the Taiwan Strait, however, would represent a far more perilous scenario—militarily, economically, and strategically—raising the specter of global destabilization. 

Historical precedent underscores a consistent geopolitical logic: nuclear-armed powers tend to avoid direct confrontation, opting instead to engage through proxies. This logic of strategic restraint also informs current U.S. foreign policy, which favors calibrated interventions where risks and costs appear manageable, while steering clear of prolonged entanglements. It’s a lesson learned from Cold War conflicts like the Vietnam War (1965–1973) as well as more recent engagements such as the U.S.–Afghan War (2001–2021) where costs far outweighed strategic gains. 

Historical analogies further illustrate the limits of U.S. commitments. The U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War (1965–1973) was driven by mounting American casualties, intense domestic anti-war sentiment, and the pursuit of a negotiated settlement through the Paris Peace Accords—all reflecting a shift in U.S. national priorities. Similarly, the U.S. disengaged from the Republic of China in 1949 and again in 1979, first withdrawing military support during the Chinese Civil War, then switching diplomatic recognition to the People’s Republic of China to gain a Cold War advantage. 

Similarities between South Vietnam then and Taiwan today are striking: both face existential threats from communist neighbors, suffer internal divisions (military instability in South Vietnam, political polarization in Taiwan), and depend heavily on U.S. military support. In both cases, American commitment has shown signs of fragility—seen in the withdrawals of U.S. combat troops from Vietnam by 1973, and in U.S. President Donald Trump’s blunt, transactional remarks in 2019 suggesting that Taiwan must pay for American protection. 

Complacency in Taiwan is also sustained by optimistic assessments—such as the “low probability of an imminent Chinese invasion” (a view recently challenged by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth) and the belief that China currently lacks the capability to execute an amphibious assault on Taiwan. This misplaced sense of security is further fueled by limited awareness of the mixed record of U.S. intelligence. Though the U.S. correctly predicted Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it failed to anticipate the Korean War in 1950 and the fall of Saigon in 1975. 

A Central Intelligence Bulletin, a classified publication by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), dated June 23, 1950—just two days before North Korea invaded South Korea—stated that a large-scale attack was possible but not certain. While the CIA recognized escalating tensions, it did not confidently forecast an imminent invasion in the days leading up to June 25, 1950. 

The completion of the U.S. troop withdrawals from Vietnam on March 29, 1973, was followed by U.S. government statements affirming confidence in the defensive capabilities of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). 

In his televised address on March 29, 1973, President Richard Nixon emphasized that the ARVN had the strength to protect South Vietnam following the U.S. troop withdrawals. During congressional hearings in 1973 and 1974 on aid to Vietnam, U.S. officials testified about confidence in the ARVN’s ability to defend South Vietnam. 

A U.S. embassy cable dated April 7, 1975, reported that earlier intelligence assessments did not view a North Vietnamese victory as inevitable, noting that the ARVN had reconstituted several divisions capable of maintaining defensive positions. 

Even in the final days before the fall of Saigon, General William Westmoreland commended the ARVN’s defensive efforts, describing their tactical withdrawals as prudent and affirming that the ARVN had the courage to stop an overwhelmingly superior force. Meanwhile, Ambassador Graham Martin maintained faith in the ARVN’s ability to hold out, resisting evacuation efforts and insisting that additional aid might still stabilize the situation.

The fall of Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, into the hands of the Taliban on August 15, 2021, has barely aged into history’s archives. In early 2021, U.S. intelligence acknowledged the Taliban as a mounting threat but underestimated the speed of the Taliban’s advance. Kabul fell to the Taliban in just a matter of weeks—far sooner than the expected period of at least six months.

Taiwan’s path to security must begin at home. Combat capabilities and semiconductor dominance are important, but they’re not enough. Visible commitment to national defense—through improved readiness, public engagement, and military reform—is essential. Complacency is not just a strategic liability; it’s a barrier to the very support Taiwan seeks from its allies.

If Taiwan expects the world to stand with it in a time of crisis, it must first stand up for itself.

Regan Chong is a Hong Konger advocating for Hong Kong’s independence from China and a contact person for the Hong Konger Front. 

 

 

Please visit our new official Website: http://www.hkfront.org

The Shambles of Democracy

Dictator Hu Jintao

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

By David Wallechinsky

A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. The worst commit terrible human-rights abuses.

This present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International.

6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV
or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.

Hong Kong names first snooping chief

 

August 12, 2006, The Sunday Telegraph

HONG Kong has appointed judge Woo Kwok-hing as its first Commissioner of Interception of Communications - a title that is causing as much grim mirth as the commission itself is causing angst among the city's frustrated democrats.

The establishment of the commission followed nearly 150 hours of often fierce debate in the 60-member Legislative Council, Hong Kong's parliament.

The democratic parties expressed concern that, as legislator Emily Lau said, "the law may be used to target political enemies".

But they were, as usual, outmanoeuvred in the parliament, which includes many pro-government appointees, and finally walked out in protest, leaving the law to pass 32-0.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association also opposed the law, which permits covert surveillance of reporters, complaining that their contacts would become targets of secret interception, and sources of information would be lost.

The commission, comprising three judges appointed on Wednesday, will issue warrants from secret courts that give law enforcement agencies the right to read emails and post, bug homes and offices, tap phones and follow suspects.

Justice Woo issued a statement about his "hefty and important" new role, in which he said: "I am deeply conscious of the trust reposed in me to ensure that all (secret operations) must be in accordance with the law and will not be unjustifiably undertaken."

Beijing - which refuses to approve democratic elections in Hong Kong until all candidates can be proved "patriotic" supporters of the People's Republic - has been pressing for a tougher security regime since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty nine years ago.

Other observers of Hong Kong have focused on the pomposity of the judge's title, comparing it to Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera The Mikado, in which Ko-ko becomes Lord High Executioner and Pooh-Bah becomes Lord High Everything Else.

Catholics mark Tiananmen Square anniversary

By Catholic News Service

HONG KONG (CNS) -- Hong Kong Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun joined about 100 Catholics praying for religious freedom and democracy in China while commemorating 17 years since the Tiananmen Square June 4th Massacre.

Cardinal Zen said people cannot forget the 1989 tragedy and should demand that Chinese authorities give a clear explanation, especially in accounting for the hundreds slaughtered, reported UCA News, an Asian church news agency based in Thailand.

The call for democracy and sacrifice had motivated him to spend six months each year in China educating new religious leaders, he said, referring to the time he spent teaching in major seminaries on the mainland from 1989 until 1996.

He expressed his belief that the same motivation "encouraged Hong Kong people to show their concern about state affairs and to commemorate those who were slaughtered in Tiananmen Square."

Participants at the prayer service organized by the Union of Hong Kong Catholic Organizations in Support of the Patriotic and Democratic Movement in China were commemorating the young people and others who were killed on June 4, 1989, when Chinese authorities used military force to suppress a student-led protest in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Protesters were calling for democracy and clean government in China.

"All they asked for was a clean government -- is that a sin?" The New York Times reported the cardinal as saying. "And what they wished for was a strong nation -- is that a sin? All we're doing is pursuing their aspirations."

The New York Times reported June 4 that Cardinal Zen said the economy has improved and that "some people have earned lots of money, but corruption abounds, the gap in wealth is huge, mines keep swallowing workers and fake milk powder and fake medicines are flooding the market -- is this considered an improvement?"

"If they had listened to the kind advice of the students and workers, would today's country be a better country?" he asked.

Participants at the Hong Kong service, which this year fell on the feast of Pentecost, stuck small crosses onto a large map of China to symbolize evangelization all over the country.

After the prayer meeting, Catholics marched to the nearby local government headquarters, alternating hymns and slogans that demanded a clear and public account of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Tens of thousands of people in Hong Kong have gathered at Victoria Park for a candlelight vigil every June 4 to mark the June 4th Massacre.

Hong Kong says democracy could cost citizens dearly
DPA , HONG KONG
Friday, Mar 24, 2006

The Hong Kong government yesterday faced a barrage of criticism for suggesting that introducing democracy would lead to a welfare state and higher public spending.

In a paper to be presented to a government committee today, the Hong Kong government warned that there could be a sharp rise in welfare spending if universal suffrage was allowed.

The paper also says Hong Kong's investment and economic environment might be adversely affected if free elections were introduced too quickly.

The discussion paper sounded the warning as it reported on views it had gathered around the city over the best way forward for constitutional development.

"There were views that as Hong Kong had a narrow tax base, if universal suffrage was implemented ... Hong Kong might become a welfare state," the paper said.

"There are also views that in other economies with full democracy, governments provide a relatively high level of welfare protection but at the same time they are also capitalist societies," it said.

The paper will be presented today to the Committee on Governance and Political Development. The government says it supports universal suffrage but only in the long term.

Pro-democracy legislators accused the government of trying to scare people away from universal suffrage by suggesting democracy would cost taxpayers more.

"It is absolutely absurd," said Civic Party Legislator Ronny Tong. "The government is trying to equate people who want democracy as people who are opposed to the capitalist system."

"Ninety nine per cent of people in Hong Kong support the capitalist system but also want democracy. It doesn't mean that if we have one-man-one-vote, we will necessarily turn into a socialist state," he said.

However, the government's secretary for constitutional development Stephen Lam defended the paper, saying democracy overseas had led to budgetary pressure.

"Overseas where there are systems of universal suffrage and direct elections, political leaders face rather serious public pressures for implementing more public services," he said. "That will have an effect on fiscal prudence and the government's budgetary process."

Trust can go a long way

Michael DeGloyer

The Standard
Thursday, January 05, 2006

Issues of trust dominated 2005. The year opened with millions of Boxing Day Tsunami victims expressing distrust in the initial outpouring of promises of aid from both foreigners and their own governments.
For example, residents of Aceh province, bitterly struggling with the Indonesian army, at first mistrusted everyone. Conservative Aceh Muslims recoiled at thousands of military personnel both foreign and Indonesian arriving shortly after the disaster. The appearance of non-Muslim, non-Indonesian outsiders sparked initial xenophobia and even attacks on aid workers, including one from Hong Kong.

But the wrecking of infrastructure was so complete that there was no choice but to accept outside help. Aceh survivors and other Indonesians learned to trust one another as well as outsiders' good intentions, both in terms of aid and as mediators in the long-running conflict between the province and Jakarta.

With the Indonesian army now reducing its numbers in Aceh after rebel arms surrenders and a negotiated settlement, prospects for peace appear bright.

Sri Lanka, the second worst tsunami-devastated nation, saw trust go in the opposite direction. Government corruption and military responses in Tamil areas destroyed the trust that had begun to bloom after years of Norwegian-led negotiations. So much did trust diminish that Tamils largely boycotted elections held at year's end, handing the presidency to an anti-Tamil hardliner who vowed to settle things by force.

Trust and distrust continued to dominate events throughout the year.

Mid-year the world looked on in dismay as the most powerful country on Earth seemed unable or unwilling to rescue thousands of increasingly desperate refugees stranded by the failure of New Orleans levees. They were not the only thing to fail New Orleanians' trust.

Elaborate evacuation plans and procedures failed. Civil society, city government, and the police failed. State-level government assistance failed. The largest government reorganization - resulting in the Homeland Security Bureau, made after the failures of September 11, 2001, and meant to guarantee rapid, comprehensive response to feared mass-casualty terrorist attacks - failed to respond effectively to the most accurately and fully predicted disaster on record.

Government at all levels failed in terms of zoning, building codes and enforcement, insurance requirements, flood prevention, disaster planning and execution, and recovery operations. Thousands across Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana were bankrupted, made homeless and displaced by predictable natural disasters and preventable damage.

If these blows to Americans' trust in government were not enough, the year also witnessed their vaunted beliefs in limited government, rule of law, freedom, and the rights of individuals all trampled by the most indiscriminate, most widespread surveillance of all forms of communication ever conducted by any government.

Corruption investigations will further test American's trust this year. The issue of trust will likely dominate the 2006 elections.

Locally, trust was also an issue all year.

In January 2005, few could believe Beijing would trust a devout Catholic and Knight of the British realm as chief executive. Fewer could imagine Beijing would trust democrats like Martin Lee and "Long-hair" Leung enough to let them enter the mainland. None believed a pro-democracy lawyer had any chance replacing Elsie Leung as Secretary for Justice or that any democrat would sit on Exco for years to come.

No one trusted Tung Chee-hwa to propose constitutional reforms that even incrementally moved toward democracy in 2007 and 2008.

Donald Tsang began to rebuild trust by doing all these things. But when he called for just enough trust from just enough democrats to pass what most people considered modest but nevertheless real steps forward in our governance, trust failed.

Beijing demanded trust that a timetable for full democracy might be forthcoming after 2008. Tsang demanded trust in his intentions and trust that his package was the best obtainable. Reform failed because no one - Beijing, Tsang, the Liberal Party, the DAB, big business, or democrats - really trusted the people.

Beijing fears majority rule and Hong Kong's democratic example. Big business fears "mob rule" and uncontrolled entitlements. Liberals and the DAB fear fully competitive elections. Tsang fears Beijing, big business and directly elected Legco members. Democrats, far from trusting the public, feared if Tsang's reforms passed the majority might then fail to continue pressing for faster and full democratization.

Last year taught us we cannot be too trusting or too distrusting. But locally, we need more, not less trust for reform to succeed, as it must for governance to improve and accountability to increase. A new attempt at constitutional reform must be made in 2006 with more trust from everyone, in everyone.

`Bull' leads charge of radio rebels
Activist is set to test officials' patience with another broadcast, write Justin Mitchell and Mimi Lau

Monday, November 07, 2005, The Standard

Eastern district councillor Tsang Kin- shing, who goes by the nickname "The Bull," seems to relish his self-appointed role as a Hong Kong radio rebel.

He's faced government inquiries since he organized a 90-minute October 3 "Citizen's Radio" broadcast on 102.8 FM, within the bandwidth used by the Metro Finance station owned by Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing.

The allegedly illegal transmission, which used content from People's Radio, a Hong Kong Internet station, reached Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and parts of Happy Valley.

A second broadcast is reportedly planned today, from 10pm-11.30pm, using a feed from People's Radio of a talkshow to be hosted by Raymond Wong, who was sacked by Commercial Radio, and legislator Emily Lau.

"I don't know our topic, yet," said Lau. "We just turn up and say whatever we want to say. I think we will talk about political reform."

Tsang, a burly, normally outspoken man, chose to keep mum October 24 when invited by the Office of the Telecommunications Authority to answer questions about the October 3 broadcast.

Just before he was questioned, he and legislator Leung Kwok-hung scuffled briefly with security guards outside the OFTA office when they called for an expansion of Hong Kong's airwaves.

"I chose the right to remain silent regarding the illegal radio broadcast accusation because the questioning was ambiguous," Tsang said.

On the same day, an OFTA official went to Tsang's house and asked his wife for information about Citizen's Radio. She refused to answer, and the visit lasted less than a minute. Tsang was furious and later blasted OFTA.

"[My wife] doesn't know anything about it and is not a public figure. They should come to me and leave my family alone," he said, adding that the government was acting like communists and creating a "red terror."

Wong was also summoned but refused to go to the OFTA office.

An OFTA spokeswoman said the government does not disclose details of an ongoing investigation. "Everything is being conducted using normal investigation procedures," she said.

It's not known how many listeners Tsang's broadcast reached.

"Maybe six or seven people, one taxi driver and others, called us during the broadcast," Tsang said. "It was also a test to see the government's ability to monitor us. We want all citizens to hear what we have to say. We have limited technology and equipment and if the government catches us they will take it. But I'm prepared to face criminal charges."

Tsang declined to give specifics about his transmitter but admitted it cost about HK$10,000. It was ordered via the Internet and can fit in a truck or van and be driven to different areas for future broadcasts.

Pointing to a chart of the FM frequencies assigned to all 13 city stations owned by three organizations, RTHK, Commercial Radio and Metro Radio, Tsang insisted 102.8 is not being used.

"When I listened to 102.8 before, I heard Guangzhou radio," he said.

But he couldn't explain that because FM channels are assigned a bandwidth of 200 kHz, and the midpoint of a channel's range - 102.5 in this case - is used for identification purposes, it means that he was likely squatting on Metro's signal.

"We don't intend to attack any particular station," he said when asked why a frequency on Metro's bandwidth was targeted. "There are 12 stations taking up a lot of space, more than they need."

Tsang said that in an earlier application for a license, he was told two AM spots were available. Why not go AM?

"No one listens to AM and not many Hong Kong radios or radios around the world have AM reception," he said, apparently not attuned to the fact that AM is the frequency of choice for talk radio - such as he is proposing - in the United States.

Eddie Leung, who organized the People's Radio Internet radio site last year, said, "I cannot speak for Tsang, but my opinion is that most people in Hong Kong listen to FM frequencies. Hong Kong people should have a wider choice of media, including more FM stations. The audience currently doesn't have too much choices."

Though Tsang denied singling out Metro Radio's frequency, Lam provided a clue. Lam and other backers had competed with Li for the FM slot. "I spent HK$3 million writing a proposal but, of course, we lost," Lam said. "However I really don't know why [Tsang used] that certain spectrum."

Tsang was a construction worker with a secondary school education who said he became politically galvanized in 1989 by the Tiananmen Square massacre, and went from pounding nails to politics as a full-time district councillor.

He was further inspired to organize Citizen's Radio - which he said has "less than 15 core members and more than 1,000 supporters" and depends on street donations - after the abrupt departure of Lam and Albert Cheng from Teacup.

In September Tsang applied for a license with the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority for a 24-hour FM station featuring public affairs talkshows and live broadcasts of open meetings of district councils and government advisory bodies.

A TELA spokesman said his application is still being reviewed. Tsang said his chances for receiving permission was "harder than winning the Mark Six."

"I know his chances are quite slim," said Lam. "But he's an action man who really tries to get what what he wants, regardless of the end result. That's why people call him The Bull."

For the Chinese government a referendum is a threat to the nation


Democratic Party protests demanding universal suffrage. According to Bishop Zen, the referendum is no threat to Hong Kong-Beijing relationship.

Hong Kong (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Gao Siren, director of the central government's liaison office, said that a referendum on universal suffrage was a “challenge to the country's political and constitutional system”.

Lawmakers from the Democratic Party are behind a push for greater democracy in the Territory; their goal is to get Beijing to agree to universal suffrage and the direct election to the post of Hong Kong Chief Executive. But the referendum they propose is not meant to be binding.

Yet, in an interview with Xinhua, Gao Siren stressed how the referendum was inconsistent with Hong Kong’s Basic Law no matter its form or packaging.

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa also said that the proposed referendum was “inappropriate, inconsistent with established legal procedures, impractical and misleading to the public”. He warned that a referendum could seriously undermine the ‘cordial relationship’ with central authorities.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on April 26 had already dashed any hope for full democracy when it ruled our direct elections for the post of chief executive and universal suffrage for the Territory’s Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008.

A referendum “will not help promote [. . .] democracy in Hong Kong,” Mr Tung said, for it “departs from the Basic Law and the [Standing Committee's] decision in dealing with the electoral methods in 2007 and 2008."

The Chinese Catholic Church also weighed into the controversy in favour of the referendum. Some days ago, Mgr Joseph Zen, Bishop of Hong Kong, expressed his support for the measure to gauge public opinion on the issue of universal suffrage. According to the top prelate, finding out what people think “would not undermine the relationship between China and Hong Kong”.