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
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS