"Liberty, combat, philanthropy" might be a good motto for Taiwan.
Liberty is a question to be dealt with as a matter of the utmost urgency -- as a legacy from the people who sacrificed their life for it, like so many lilies engraved on the road of Taiwan's human rights.
Liberty can be compared to a strong but sensitive woman, ready to fight for her children and family, her friends and neighbors and the natural environment as well. She can cook and feed, before transmitting her knowledge to her children; she also reads and inspires, and teaches her children accordingly. She is the weapon against cold-blooded rationalism and greed for money that infects so many people nowadays and destroys nature.
Liberty is an entity whose name deserves to be written everywhere, as Paul Eluard urged in his poem, "on all pages and screens, on the horizon too and the wings of birds." Why is it so important to write her name everywhere? To free yourself from the old yokes -- masters and commanders -- and the new yokes, which are money and materialism.
Every Taiwanese has the right to be the master of his or her fate. Why do we need the Liberty Square instead of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial? Because Liberty Square represents the past, the present and the future of Taiwanese seeking liberty.
Through long and gruesome combat, the Taiwanese people conquered and seized their freedom from the hands of the Japanese colonizers, then conquered a second time and seized it from the hands of a dictatorship. Yet this fight is far from over. Even more challenges wait ahead, in the form of imperialistic nations. The Taiwanese will have to fight for their freedom, and this is their mission. Such combat is unavoidable.
Many Taiwanese are wise; they have deep emotions and knowledge; they have integrated the ancient wisdom but they are too shy or too modest, sometimes even too self-effacing to think they can innovate; so they let it manifest in a sort of fatalistic way. That's the reason why "combat" would be the second term of the motto. Combat led by artists.
When it comes to a combative soul, who is more appropriate than the artist to arouse the spirit of a population? As Wassily Kandinsky, who painted the first modern abstract paintings said, the artist has the social mission to refine the human spirit. Living in osmosis with the nature, he/she is inspired by her and feels a deep emotion that makes him/her create a work of art. This work of art transmits a strong spiritual force to those who view it and a strong desire to achieve something good for the community. French painter Gustave Moreau's Prometheus ignites in everybody's heart a strong desire to resist against oppression and achieve something for humanity in spite of the terrible suffering this might bring.
Born from the interactions between artist and spectator is the last term of the motto, "philanthropy." Famous thinker Zhang Zai (張載) of the Song Dynasty once said "all the people are my fellows and all things are my companions." This phrase represents philanthropy. Indeed, a fight for liberty involves not only oneself or one's family, but also all the people living in Taiwan and the land, mountains and rivers as well. Freedom through combat, philanthropy through freedom: This is the spirit we should embrace.
Sylvie Allassonniere
Taipei
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS