With the recent Justin Lin (林毅夫) incident, Taiwan's society has undergone another baptism of fire and the positive consensus engendered by the incident has been an unexpected windfall. Clearly, Taiwan has already developed the characteristics of a civil society, societal development being guided by the debate emerging from the people and media, rather than by the maneuverings of politicians.
Two months ago I visited Kinmen. To my surprise I discovered that Kinmen's culture and its people had developed a certain confidence and I was elated for both the local government and the people. During a chat with a noodle shop employee, I was proudly told of about the satisfaction of being Kinmenese -- such things as not locking doors at night, pensions for the elderly and stipends for pre-school and school-age children. Learning of Kinmen's social welfare system filled me with ebullience similar to what I experienced visiting Stockholm in 1998. The Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration's social welfare policy leaves one feeling optimistic.
In chatting with people on Kinmen I saw Taiwanese values, as well as a basic difference between Kinmen and Xiamen. Deep in my heart, I felt that defending Kinmen was equal to defending Taiwan -- as well as universal values. It is as if a "great wall" of democratic freedom connects Kinmen to London and Stockholm.
Actually, in Taiwan -- especially in Taipei -- a very endearing society has already developed. Within this society, Eslite Bookstore is a representation of the aspirations of everyday people.
This Eslite-style satisfaction is built on the universal values of freedom, open-mindedness, innovation and cordiality. If one had to explain how Taipei was different from Shanghai and Beijing, the answer would most likely be "Eslite bookstore." If one had to explain how Taipei was similar to New York, Paris and London, the answer would also be "Eslite." Eslite represents universal human values. One would have difficulty imagining an Eslite bookstore in Beijing. The books might be there, but the soul wouldn't.
The Justin Lin incident made me reconsider things -- what are we trying to uphold? If it's like Lin has said, why should we defend this little island and be willing to give up the vast mainland?
To me, defending Taiwan means defending Eslite bookstore and the boundless dreams of the people of Taiwan. Eslite bookstore is only one example of the multitude of wonderful things to be found in Taipei, which include cafes, bookstores and eateries. Even more significant is the sense of satisfaction that emanates from the city's people.
A friend once asked me why I still adhere to certain ideals regarding Taiwanese society. Actually, the stage of development Taiwan enjoys was achieved more endearingly than by any Chinese society in history. Among the key factors responsible for this are a reverence for democracy and a respect for the individual.
The fact that Eden Foundation founder Liu Hsia (劉俠) can live so confidently and with such integrity; the joy expressed by female legislators in the Legislative Yuan upon passage of the Gender Equality Labor Law (兩性工作平 等法); the fact that many people with cerebral palsy can now live confident lives -- everywhere are to be found declarations of Taiwanese society's universal values.
These things are unimaginable in China. We see the manner in which Falun Gong gatherings are broken up. And when we see 30,000 to 40,000 people in Hong Kong holding a candlelight vigil on the 13th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, we can appreciate what people in the territory hope for -- as well as what they live in fear of.
What principles do I uphold? Just the defense of Taiwan and Eslite bookstore, that's all.
Su Ih-jen is a professor at the National Taiwan University College of Medicine.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS