There are no "ifs" in history. We can't do things over again -- there is only the review after the event. History is often made up of accidental events. If Rosa Parks hadn't refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger on Dec. 1, 1955, perhaps the American civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr would not have occurred. Without King's assassination, perhaps the success of the movement would have been delayed for decades.
Similarly, without the efforts of countless people, Taiwan's democracy and freedom may not exist. And without the Wild Lily Student Movement (
We now live in political chaos with history staring us right in the eye to see what we are and are not doing. Our every move will affect how in the years to come we will interpret this period.
But King also wrote in his autobiography that history is a matter of choice. He said that when collective will has decided on a direction, perhaps history is already moving in that direction.
Now, however, I am facing a dilemma. Taiwan is currently caught in a confrontation between two enormous forces. Where will the pro and anti-President Chen Shui-bian (
I cannot imagine how the anti-Chen campaign launched by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) might affect Taiwan's society. Will Taiwan's democracy be deepened and the Taiwanese people live happily ever after if Chen resigns? As popular revolution rears its head and democracy is relegated to the back seat, will we continue to rely on revolutionary means to force future unpopular presidents to step down? Will social values then be improved, and special privileges and the power of money disappear?
As the campaign to unseat Chen places morality above all else, what has happened to the judicial and constitutional systems? If the campaign fails to unseat Chen, how should we calm the emotions of its supporters? Will the hatred caused by the 2004 presidential election continue to spread and cause more polarization? Will Shih, former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), and other campaign leaders follow up by forming a new political party, mocking those stupid supporters who have enabled them to do so?
In the face of the pan-blue camp's strong demands for Chen's resignation, the pan-green camp has made every effort to support him. Except for responding to his supporters by strengthening his resolve not to resign, how much self-examination will Chen be capable of? And while improving their ratings or circulations by promoting the campaign to oust Chen, will the media really be able to carry out an in depth review of the professional ethics and social responsibility of the fourth estate?
The confrontation between the pro and anti-Chen camps has created a social atmosphere of irrationality and craziness, while rational discussion on deeper systemic and social problems are absent. Many people only sigh, at a loss what to do. Friends tell me to urge pro-green supporters to display the same self-constraint and cool they showed after the presidential election in 2004 to avoid a bloody tragedy and let democracy continue to advance.
But there is one thing I do not understand: Why is it always the green camp that should show restraint and engage in calm self-examination, while the pan-blue camp is never prepared to do the same for the sake of the nation?
Although I seldom agree with writer Lung Ying-tai's (
We have to look positively on such voices. We should look at ourselves and wonder what, in today's chaotic situation, we would insist on doing and not doing.
Michelle Wang is the deputy secretary general of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
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