To begin with, I want to make it clear that I am a proponent of unification -- I support unification idealistically at the current stage and think that Taiwan and China should unify when conditions are ripe.
Although I am a strong proponent of unification and believe that Taiwanese will benefit more from unification than from independence, I must say that no one has the right to assert that Taiwanese independence is not an option. It is unbelievable that some Taiwanese politicians, after two decades of democracy in Taiwan, are still unable to grasp such a simple and clear idea.
When reading Chinese novels of chivalry, we often come across scenes in which the hero allows his or her opponent to choose the weapons they want to employ in a fight. These heroes know that their skills are outstanding, and so they fear no challenge.
My pro-unification friends, what are you afraid of? Taiwanese are not stupid. If the idea of Taiwanese independence is such a terrible option, they will not select that option just because we acknowledge it. Someone who is confident of his beliefs does not deny others the right to voice their convictions, just as a martial-arts hero shows confidence in his own skills by allowing his enemy to choose whatever weapon he wants.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) statement that "Taiwanese independence is one of the options for Taiwan's future, but the KMT will not regard it as an option for the party" is an expression of confidence in his opposition to Taiwanese independence.
Only by expressing this confidence can unification proponents free themselves of their shackles and meet independence proponents in fair debate. This is a great leap forward for the unification discourse, and there's no reason to worry.
To gain recognition of one's own opinion in a democracy, one has to rely on persuasion, not on blocking other ideas. It is like a market -- we have the option to decide whether we want to sell apples or pears, but consumers have the option to decide what they want to buy. We can't tell them to buy apples just because that is what we are selling.
Opposing Taiwanese indepen-dence and championing Taiwanese independence are merely two options espoused by the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). A political party is not the people. It can provide different options for the people to choose from, but has no right to say that the people must choose unification or independence because that is that the party wants. No matter whether we espouse the cause of independence or unification, in a democratic society me must win public support by persuasion, not by blocking out opposing ideas.
Why has the unification discourse been weak in recent years? Because many proponents of unification only know how to demonize independence proponents and have failed to back up their opposition with well-founded arguments. Thus, those who advocate independence have been able to make an easy reply to such opposition, saying that "no political party has the right to deprive the Taiwanese of their choice."
When I see pan-blue politicians vexed and in panic over Ma's remark -- instead of seeing that it is beneficial to the anti-independence position -- I can only say that there are reasons for the pan-blues' repeated defeat by the DPP. In the past, some have dubbed me a unification die-hard. If I do not fear the inclusion of independence as an option for the nation's future, shouldn't others who champion unification be more confident in themselves?
C.V. Chen is a lawyer and former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS