Three centuries ago, French King Louis XIV ruled as an absolute monarch, with limitless power over the lives and property of his subjects. Wars and invasions were launched entirely on his whim. According to legend, the conceited and arrogant ruler went so far as to proclaim “L’etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”).
More than two centuries after Rousseau’s writings on democracy and the Amerian and French revolutions, and a century after the Chinese Revolution of 1911, at a time when Taiwan has belatedly taken its place among the world’s democracies, who would have thought that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would echo the French king’s motto, albeit less succinctly.
With a look of righteous indignation, Ma chastised the Democratic Progressive Party for opposing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) his government signed with China on June 29, saying that those who oppose the ECFA are treating the people as their enemies. Since Ma does not consider Taiwan to be a nation, he cannot call them enemies of the nation. Instead, he poses as defender of “the people” as cover for his own autocratic tendencies and intolerance for any voice of opposition.
Ma’s words are not just conceited — they are far removed from the truth, devoid of logic and thoroughly undemocratic.
Opinion polls indicate that the public is roughly split 50-50 between those who support the ECFA and those who oppose it, while only about 30 percent say they support Ma. In light of these figures, how can he claim that those who object to his pet project are enemies of “the people?”
History has shown that the most dictatorial rulers are often the very ones who claim everything they do is for “the people.”
Mao Zedong (毛澤東) wanted to “liberate the people of Taiwan,” while his arch-rival Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was determined to “rescue our compatriots on the mainland.”
In reality, however, Taiwanese people have already liberated themselves and China’s people will save themselves sooner or later.
When the US urged Chiang not to go on and on about “retaking the mainland,” he responded that if he gave up on “retaking the mainland,” “his people” would object and “the people on the mainland” would sink into despair.
But was Chiang ever really on the side of “the people?” I think not.
In the 1960s, US scholars often joked that Chiang’s “Free China” was not free, while Mao’s “People’s China” cared nothing for its people. In a few words, the joke sums up what the rival regimes shared in common — complete disregard for ordinary folk.
The closest ally of the “People’s China” — North Korea — is the most isolationist and dictatorial regime on Earth. For North Korea’s rulers, its people’s lives are worthless, yet the country’s official title is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The similarity with the People’s Republic of China goes beyond the choice of words, as Chinese people are denied even the limited rights they are supposed to enjoy under their country’s constitution. What do these “people’s republics” really care for their people? Nothing.
It is entirely normal and proper in a democracy for a government to encounter opposition, yet Ma’s response, labeling his opponents as “enemies of the people,” is thoroughly undemocratic.
His attitude is an insult to Taiwan’s democracy and shows that he and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are still mired in their own autocratic past.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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.
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