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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers