This is not a letter from an irate Taiwanese. This is from an incredulous Malaysian on the
logic of Singaporean Foreign Minister George Yeo's (楊榮文) speech at the UN General Assembly. His criticism of Taiwan is unwarranted in light of Singapore's history and the even-handed treatment it received when it broke away from the Malaysian Federation in 1965. Mind you, Singapore willingly joined the federation in the first place because it perceived there to be advantages in being part of a larger nation.
The point is this: When
Singapore joined the federation in 1963, its government effectively reduced itself to a provincial government. I would think that once a state enters into a political union it gives up certain rights, such as the right to secede.
Throughout history, the exercising of this right has been labeled as anything from "rebellion" to "separatism." I can only think of the breakup of Singapore and Malaysia and the former Czechoslovakia as examples of peaceful separation.
In both cases, the parties involved acted like adults. They sat down, talked and arrived at a mutually agreed solution. I believe that had the federal government of the day chosen to do so, it could have forced the union upon Singapore.
This is in stark contrast to the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Here we have one country laying claim to another country. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled Taiwan in any way or form. The Republic of China on the other hand lost the mainland to the communists, but kept insisting it was the only legitimate ruler of China. This thickheadedness has left Taiwan with a historical burden, and the average Taiwanese knows this.
As the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) grip on power slowly eroded, the natives rightly wished to put things right by doing away with the ROC and navigating their own destiny. What is wrong with that? George Yeo's derision of Taiwanese independence is therefore most unwarranted, shameless and intellectually bankrupt.
Singapore was able to secede from a union it had clamored to join. Taiwan on the other hand is simply maintaining a sovereignty that is not recognized by Singapore or most of the rest of the world.
Mr. Yeo, please don't let your reverence for Greater China blind you to reality. The same goes for you too, [Prime Minister] Lee Hsien Loong (
The modern ROC is no longer synonymous with the KMT, and it is no longer suppressed by KMT nationalist doctrine. It therefore no longer necessarily believes in reunification. More and more people are beginning to realize the existence of their own culture and consciousness.
This nation has developed separately from China. In fact, China owes much of its present prosperity to Taiwanese businessmen, who are investing heavily there. The Taiwanese, on the other hand, have not received a single word of thanks, only the constant threat of invasion or annihilation. China would have all others believe that those businessmen are patriots returning to the motherland.
Instead of swallowing Chinese propaganda and believing that cross-strait tensions are an internal problem, UN members should take the step of providing Taiwan with some political protection against Chinese aggression.
Taiwan is part of the global village, like it or not. Help it break out of its isolation, not trample on its evolution. It is belligerent China that is missing the opportunity to resolve the dispute peacefully.
Y.J. Ho
Tainan
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS