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.
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
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
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
RSS