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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
On Sunday, elite free solo climber Alex Honnold — famous worldwide for scaling sheer rock faces without ropes — climbed Taipei 101, once the world’s tallest building and still the most recognizable symbol of Taiwan’s modern identity. Widespread media coverage not only promoted Taiwan, but also saw the Republic of China (ROC) flag fluttering beside the building, breaking through China’s political constraints on Taiwan. That visual impact did not happen by accident. Credit belongs to Taipei 101 chairwoman Janet Chia (賈永婕), who reportedly took the extra step of replacing surrounding flags with the ROC flag ahead of the climb. Just
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS