In democratic politics, major national policies are established based on public opinion. Only autocratic, dictatorial and non-democratic political parties see the will of their deceased leaders as national guidelines in order to secure power.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was skyrocketed into his official career under the party-state system and his anti-democratic record is clear for all to see. Although he was elected through a democratic mechanism, he only took public opinion into consideration before the election. Since his election, Ma has showed no signs of considering public opinion. Instead of concerning himself with the opinions of the living, he holds fast to the opinions of the deceased.
Indeed, it is the tradition of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to consider the opinion of previous leaders when ruling the country. Dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) embraced Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) thought, Chiang’s son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) followed his father’s, and even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was forced to follow Chiang Ching-kuo’s ideas for a while. Now Ma’s turn has come, and he has made the spirit of Chiang Ching-kuo at the mausoleum in Touliao (頭寮), Taoyuan County, part of his political capital. So surely he should insist on following the younger Chiang’s thought.
Although Ma has learned of the beauty of power based on the thought of a deceased leader, he is not following Chiang’s opinions, but those of his late father Ma Ho-ling (馬鶴凌): Dissolution of the independence movement and a gradual slide toward unification with China, followed by eventual unification. Mid-level party hack Ma Ho-ling’s will has overridden the will of the two Chiangs.
To Taiwanese, the perspectives of the two dictators were not entirely terrifying. The elder Chiang called for the implementation of the Three Principles of the People, retaking China, the revitalization of Chinese culture and defending democracy. His son carried on the heritage by demanding that the government and the public be determined to fight the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and recover China. He also urged soldiers and civilians to accelerate the restoration of China and reunification under the principles and the guidance of the late president’s instructions.
Key anti-CCP slogans such as “recover the mainland” were the tools the KMT used to resist democratization. Even Lee was surprised that he had to promote unification with China along these lines in the early days of his rule.
Although these slogans did not win over everyone, they ensured that Taiwan would not be sold out to the CCP and that at least Taiwanese would be free of the fear of being controlled by yet another foreign regime and a different system.
Ruling a country based on the will of a deceased leader runs counter to democratic principles. Ma has strayed even further by betraying the premise for unification according to the Chiangs and instead following his father’s line of thought. Not only has he failed to defend democracy, he has crawled into the pitfall of communist dictatorship. Under Ma, Taiwan has become a region of China. The Chiang family is detestable, but the Ma family’s attempts to sell out Taiwan are even more dangerous.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS