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
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with