Form a civil government
Chen Yi-chung’s (陳怡仲) opinion piece (“Taiwanese need to bone up on their Thoreau,” Oct. 31, page 8) had some suggestions on how to exercise the right of civil disobedience.
While it is encouraging to see people stand up for their rights, it is, however, not enough in the context of Taiwanese politics to stop at this level of protest.
Instead of hanging the Republic of China’s (ROC) “national flag” at home to counter the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) plan of hiding the “national flag,” it is time for Taiwanese to support a truly functional Taiwanese civil government outside the framework of the ROC Constitution.
Since it is now common knowledge that the ROC government does not plan to protect the sovereignty of Taiwan, Taiwanese can legally support their own civil government. The ROC government should move its office to Kinmen or Matsu because these are the only parts of the ROC administrative area that the ROC Constitution has included in its territory.
Besides, a temporary deployment of troops after a war should not last beyond a period of peaceful transition. An election would then have to be held to set up a civil government. In the case of dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) Nationalist troops, the stay has become permanent, contributing to Taiwan’s identity crisis.
Furthermore, the rush to reconcile with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has put Taiwan’s democracy in jeopardy.
In order to protect Taiwanese democratic values, Ma must be reminded that he won the presidential election under a campaign platform that stressed the importance of the economy while promising Taiwanese self-determination.
However, Ma has incorrectly interpreted his victory as allowing him to proceed with determining himself what sovereignty means for the people of Taiwan.
What else can be more effective to counter Ma than supporting a civil government, an election under a new set of rules and abandoning the ROC’s unfair election rules?
The current KMT’s flip-flop policies are contrary to the policies of the Chiang era. Back then, Taiwanese could be jailed or sentenced to death if they sympathized with or supported Chinese Communism.
Now, half a century later, Taiwanese who oppose Chinese Communism and defend their own country can be prosecuted. What used to constitute treason is now the primary policy of the Ma administration.
After the presidential election in March, calls for fairly dividing the electorate and establishing a new referendum law have been ignored by the KMT.
Recent violence perpetrated by KMT-supported gangsters against Tainan City Democratic Progressive Party Counselor Wang Ting-Yu (王定宇) is a vivid example of the failure of the ROC’s public security and justice systems to protect the rights of Taiwanese.
After the 228 Incident, a number of political victims were killed — Chen Wen-cheng (陳文成) and the family of Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) — during the White Terror martial era.
Those killings remain unsolved today. There is simply no justice in a land of unfair rules. The Ma administration is challenging Taiwanese’ right to freedom and justice. Are Taiwanese left with any options under the ROC’s legislative and justice systems? The answer is very obvious: Within the current ROC Constitution, nothing can be achieved. It is therefore time for Taiwanese to support a functional Taiwanese civil government.
Alison Hsieh
Vyronas, Greece
Contaminated diet needed
The talk and hype surrounding the visit of Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) (“ARATS head to arrive today for talks,” Nov. 3, page 1) and all the previous and continuing problems of food contamination arriving from China reminded me of a scene from the movie Erin Brockovich, staring Julia Roberts.
A judge orders a trial to look into water contaminated by PG&E and Erin and her fellow lawyers are sitting opposite three other lawyers representing the company.
As the head lawyer is about to drink some water from a glass on the table, Erin tells her that it has been brought especially from the contaminated area for her to try.
This gives rise to the thought that as Chen is staying at the Grand Hotel for five days, why don’t we show him the same hospitality by giving him melamine-contaminated food to eat and inform him that we have “imported” it directly from China to make him feel more at home.
Michael Wise
Danshui
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath