While traveling in Australia last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) met with Taiwanese and Chinese students at the University of Sydney. When asked to present his views on China's democratization, Ma said that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) must indeed face the issue of how to pursue democracy in China, but that progress is possible, just as the CCP used to refer to the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989 as the "1989 counter-revolutionary riots" but now calls it the "1989 political disturbances."
The fact is that since taking over the KMT chairmanship, Ma has always put forth this example as his standard answer when asked about democracy in China. As a participant in the protests on Tiananmen Square in 1989, I have been following Beijing's views on this issue over a long period of time, and I cannot reach the same conclusions as Ma. I would thus like to offer my views on the topic.
First, I would like to point out that Ma's argument contains a fundamental factual mistake: the replacement of "counter-revolutionary riots" with "political disturbances" is nothing new. The tone in official Chinese documents changed as early as 1990. If that change of tone implies a shift in political stance, does that mean that Ma really believes that China changed its position as early as 1990? Over the course of improving his understanding of Chinese policy, I think Ma has made a serious mistake. This kind of misinformation, however, could lead to serious errors of judgement, and I hope that Ma will correct his opinion based on the facts.
The second thing I want to point out is a fact that Ma has never touched on. During the 17 years since 1989, no Chinese leader, from former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
Finally, Ma has been involved in politics his whole life, and he should understand that when you want to know what a politician thinks, the main point is to watch his actions rather than listen to what he says. As for the CCP's attitude toward the Tiananmen Square protests, the reasonable and gentle demands of the "Tiananmen Mothers" led by Ding Zilin (
Ding's only son was shot to death by soldiers in Tiananmen Square, but she is still not allowed to mourn her son in public. Every year on the day of his death, all she and the families of other victims can do is burn some incense in the privacy of their homes. I can only guess at the despair and helplessness she would feel if she were to hear Ma -- who all along has been supporting the democratization of China -- talk about how the CCP gradually has been changing its view of the June Fourth Movement.
Over the past 17 years, Ma has consistently attended annual memorial services to commemorate the June Fourth Movement, and he has repeatedly stressed that a reversal of the Tiananmen Square verdict is a precondition for unification talks.
Myself and other participants in the protests as well as people concerned about the democratization of China, both overseas and in China, have been moved by this and admire Ma for his support.
It is precisely because of this that I don't want him to be led by misinformation regarding the June Fourth Movement and come to flawed conclusions. As June 4 is not far off, I venture to offer the above discussion in the hope that Ma will give it further consideration.
Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement, a visiting scholar at Harvard University and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
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