If Taiwan had truly developed from a dictatorial regime into a mature democracy, the opposition would have accepted its defeat in the recent presidential election gracefully for the good of the country. Thus society would have continued to run smoothly after the election. In a democracy, the losing side concedes defeat and congratulates the winner in a spirit of sportsmanship -- no matter how close the vote. Instead, we descended into chaos.
Why? Because Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and their underlings are still stuck in the dictatorial past, when the KMT had absolute political domination.
Rather than contributing to our growing democracy, the irrationally stubborn leaders of the KMT and the PFP provoked the disruption of society with post-election turmoil in a desperate ploy to seize the power they lost in the 2000 election.
With their incendiary speeches, rumors that President Chen Shui-bian (
Even criminals were unleashed to compound the mayhem while the nation stood aghast and we were made a target of ridicule in the eyes of the world.
With their venomous language, Lien and Soong revealed to all their true natures -- unrepentant totalitarian rulers willing to regain their positions of power at any cost.
We can only hope that now that things have settled down, they will concede the election so that Taiwan can have a peaceful inauguration. We do not need another ruckus that wastes taxpayers' money controlling unruly crowds and that disturbs schools, hospitals and libraries, causes traffic jams and generally upsets the tranquility of society.
For the past four years, the pan-blue camp has undercut Chen's efforts to establish relations with China. Like dinosaurs that have outlived their era, Lien and Soong continue to advocate an outmoded policy toward China that does not respect Taiwanese identity and has not adapted to the political changes of the past decade.
For its part, the US needs to discard its antiquated policies toward Taiwan and adopt new strategies based on the facts rather than remain frozen in the past when Taiwan was a totalitarian regime under Chiang Kai-shek (
I might add, not incidentally, that as a native Formosan of the Bunun tribe, I and hundreds of thousands of other Aborigines have never had any connection whatsoever with China. Aborigines are also a vital part of the new Taiwanese identity. Why should we be held hostage to obsolete US political policies and a communist regime's demands? This is what the world's misinformed nations seem to expect, despite the fact that these nations claim to support the democratic aspirations of peoples everywhere, and specifically to support the rights of indigenous groups.
US Vice President Dick Cheney recently said that if Taiwan declares independence, the US will not protect it from Chinese aggression. This is not fair! Many countries in the world have wanted to be free and the international community has helped them become independent and develop democratic governments. -- East Timor, the Balkans, the countries of Eastern Europe.
Why is Taiwan treated so differently? Even the thought of Taiwan declaring independence seems to provoke panic.
The problem is the "one China" policy. Neither former KMT government nor the PRC ever consulted the people of Taiwan, but made their claims by proclamation. Taiwan no longer has this kind of government nor does it have such aspirations, yet the US does not recognize the transformation Taiwan has undergone. Does Taiwan not have the right to determine its own destiny without being bullied and disrespected by the nations of the world?
Taiwan is already a free country. No one has to go to war to make us independent; no soldiers or civilians have to die for our freedom. Not one penny has to be spent to remove us from suppression by a dictator.
Yet when a communist nation demands that Taiwan be considered a province under its dominion, the whole world caters to the wishes of this authoritarian regime. Has the world gone crazy?
Judy Wu
Nantou
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry