A skewed perspective
Former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) description of Taiwan's development period as being 200-years long (Becoming a "normal country," Oct. 28, page 9) left me bemused. Indeed, at first, I assumed it was a typo since nothing much of significance happened in Taiwan around 1800. (The Dutch were kicked out some 340 years ago, Taiwan became a province almost 120 years ago, was ceded to Japan more than 100 years ago and returned to China 57 years ago last week.)
But no, Lee repeats, "During the last 200 years, the people of Taiwan were never consulted about what kind of future the want, were they?" Yet he does make mention of the Dutch settlement and their eviction by Zheng Cheng-gong (
Why then does he decide on "200 years?" Perhaps because any longer and he would have to include the Aborigines in his thinking. Four-hundred years ago 98 percent of the island's population was indigenous; now it is less than 2 percent. Presum-ably, by 200 years ago there was a safe Han majority. Indeed, the Aborigines are completely absent from Lee's 3,000-word essay, even though he claims to seek the consensus of "a Taiwan-based perspective."
Even applying the 2 percent rule enshrined in Taiwan's law, readers might expect some 60 words on the Aboriginal experience. Lee's main theme is to ask readers to understand that "These two entirely different accounts of history give rise to two entirely different perspectives on the status quo and expectations." What he does not say is that these are the accounts of Chinese who arrived from China circa 1949 and of descendents of earlier Han Chinese immigrants.
He is correct when he calls for education of the next generation to "incorporate the course of history walked on by Taiwan-ese" rather than concentrating on a "Chinese" version of his-tory, but hopefully this will be a longer history than the 200 years Lee finds useful to acknowledge.
One difference between statesmen and politicians is an ability to put themselves in the shoes of all the nation's people rather than merely to represent the interests of one section. Despite Lee's articulate and impassioned polemic, he clearly "watches the sky from the bottom of the well" and, during his years as president, failed to expand his vision beyond that of his own social and ethnic group.
Mark Caltonhill
Sanhsia
The full truth required
Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) article (Liberty Times, Oct. 25, page 15) on the "restoration" of Taiwan is lopsided. He proudly points out that the Taipei City Government is conducting a series of activities on this occasion.
It is a terrible mistake for Ma to use the 228 Museum in Taipei to display information about Taiwanese uprisings against Japanese colonial rule. Schoolchildren visiting the exhibition might be misled into thinking that the 228 Incident was caused by the Japanese. To avoid this confusion, the 228 Incident and the subsequent long period of the KMT's martial rule should also be displayed side by side.
It is acceptable to use the central courtyard of the Taipei City Government for an exhibition on Japan's abuse of "comfort women." However, at the same time there should also be information on the "military paradises" of the KMT era so that the citizens of Taipei will have a complete picture about such activities both during and after World War II.
As the mayor of Taipei, Ma acts like an implementer of the "one country, two systems" policy in Taiwan. Is he working on the second "restoration" of Taiwan?
One "restoration" was more than enough.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
The voice of the Taiwanese
In March 1996 China launched three missiles over the Taiwan Strait and ever since the Tai-wanese have lived in fear of a missile attack. For seven years China has built-up its missile program to intimidate us, while the international community hasn't paid much attention.
Why is the international community so concerned about terrorism but ignores the fact that there are more than 23 million people living under an ever-present threat of missile attack?
Although there are many political and historical issues which need to be resolved between the two sides of the Strait, a peaceful method is the better way to reconcile these differences.
China always says it intends to win the heart of Taiwanese. On behalf of the 23 million people of Taiwan, I would like to tell China and the world: It is useless for China to try to attain its goal through missiles -- disarmament is the only way to win our hearts. We want peace and prosperity, not war and missiles.
Bernard Sheng
Taoyuan County
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath