History takes place when we are not watching. For the whole world to see, four consecutive Saturdays -- the 228 Hand-in-hand Rally on Feb. 28, the 313 Rally on March 13, the presidential election on March 20 and the big pan-blue demonstration on March 27 -- have thoroughly changed the fate of Taiwan and the future of all Chinese.
For pan-blue and pan-green supporters, this has been a peaceful revolution, a revolution where the people of Taiwan have decided their own future. "Fear" was what set off this profoundly moving revolution. One side feared "independence" and the other "unification." Then, due to the dramatic result, 23 million Taiwanese were instantly swept away in a frenzy of rallies.
Although many people are still anxious, worrying over whether the nation will become divided, blue and green supporters in fact need worry no more after this total mobilization of the public.
This has been an excellent example of public mobilization. The people have learned how to express their wishes through peaceful gatherings, and how to use the international media to make their voice heard throughout the world. It has been an unprecedented exercise and, without knowing it, the people have relied on their own intelligence and peaceful demeanor to achieve a revolution.
From another perspective, after watching the presidential election, the Beijing government must understand that an anti-democratic, violent "liberation" of Taiwan by military force will run into the concerted opposition of 23 million Taiwanese, despite China's strong military and almost 500 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. The possibility of China "liberating" Taiwan by military force is now non-existent.
The rallies have also done away with the possibility of the "one country, two systems" policy being accepted here, the many shortcomings of which were revealed long ago.
Very few Taiwanese know that the "one country, two systems" policy celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. On June 22, 1984, when then Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (
However, less than seven years have passed since Hong Kong's return to China, and not only has the "one country, two systems" policy failed to induce a Taiwanese capitulation, it is also being seriously challenged in Hong Kong. On June 1 last year, an unprecedented 500,000 people took to the streets of Hong Kong, demanding the replacement of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
During the fervor surrounding Taiwan's presidential election, a meeting of the standing committee of China's National People's Congress decided to interpret articles in Hong Kong's Basic Law dealing with the change of chief executive and the creation of the Legislative Council. The aim was to silence Hong Kong calls for chief executive and Legislative Council general elections, and to warn the people of the territory that they cannot walk down the road of Taiwanese-style democracy.
This action clearly reveals that a "Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people" is a birdcage autonomy restricted to mundane matters of daily life.
It is not unexpected that the "one country, two systems" policy has reached a dead end after 20 years. Deng indeed had a vision 20 years ago. Regarding the two incompatible systems -- socialism and capitalism -- Deng said that "this means that within the People's Republic of China, the mainland with its 1 billion people will maintain the socialist system, while Hong Kong and Taiwan continue under the capitalist system."
The differences between Taiwan, Hong Kong and China have long been transferred to the two "new systems," "democracy" and "centralized authoritarianism."
Faced with Taiwan's latest presidential election and seeing the democratic force of the collectively mobilized Taiwanese public, former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
The people of Taiwan have written democratic history. The March election involving almost 13 million people may change the future of 1.3 billion Chinese.
Ku Lai is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS