Over the past few days, those who have dedicated themselves to the nation's democratization have commemorated the 20th anniversary of the passing of one of Taiwan's most revered democracy activists, Kuo Yu-hsin (郭雨新). Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members, including President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), have described Kuo as a "democracy pioneer."
Kuo deserves this accolade. Although troubled by numerous misfortunes, Kuo's beliefs and perseverance kindled the torch of democracy among Taiwanese during the Japanese colonial period and passed it on to a younger generation of activists in the days before the founding of the DPP. Although he suffered for his political ideals, Kuo brightened the prospects for Taiwanese democracy.
Born in Ilan, Kuo was elected to the Taiwan Provincial Assembly five times between 1949 and 1975. Thanks to his eloquence and his fearless drive to challenge the government, Kuo was dubbed one of the assembly's "Five Tigers." However, aware of the growing dissent, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government put tight restrictions on these political dissidents' speech. They could only voice their opposition to the government in the assembly's hall in Taichung County, far away from the political center in Taipei.
In 1975, Kuo decided to run in the legislative elections in a direct challenge to the KMT. But the vote was rigged and Kuo's bid failed. The final count included more than 80,000 invalid ballots.
In 1977, Kuo was forced into exile in the US. In 1978, when Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) took over the presidency, Kuo announced his decision to run for president to highlight the nepotism of the Chiang regime. On Aug. 2, 1985, Kuo passed away in Virginia. Twenty years later, we would all do well to honor a man who never let himself be cowed by a brutal, authoritarian regime.
To keep a tight hold on power, whenever elections came around, the KMT would wheel out its considerable arsenal of election-rigging and vote-buying techniques, producing a long and ignominious record of electoral misdeeds. But this skulduggery was no match for Taiwan's democratic awakening. In 2000, power transferred peacefully to the DPP. Although democratization has not been without pain, a democratic system allowing for peaceful, bloodless transitions of power was firmly established.
Looking back, we can now see how Kuo -- and others who sought to reform the system from the inside rather than through violence -- greatly reduced the cost that the people of Taiwan had to pay for their democracy.
Now, as a new generation of politicians enjoys the fruits of the democracy that Kuo and others fought for, how can they bear to see the legislature's state of paralysis? How can the legislature withhold the joys of democracy from the people?
The pan-blue camp's policies of allying with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to stop Taiwan independence and establishing a platform for communication between the CCP and the KMT inject the poison of one of the world's most anti-democratic parties directly into the veins of this young democracy. This cannot benefit the nation's political development.
The opposition KMT and People First Party -- and even the ruling DPP -- should take a page from the book of early democracy pioneers such as Kuo, Lei Chen (
We must never return to the days of the Chiang family, which sacrificed the people's interests in order to maintain its grip on power, and at every turn obstructed Taiwan on its road to freedom.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS