What about Taiwan?
In a recent article, Dennis Hickey claimed that: “On Oct. 10, the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and led to the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC)” and “that Taipei is gearing up to commemorate the uprising with a series of major events” on Monday (“ROC is alive and well in Taiwan,” March 21, page 8).
At this stage of Taiwan’s democratic development, only the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party, the New Party and the US should celebrate the misnomer that is the ROC government.
In the PRC, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses the ROC to bolster the nationalism necessary for its continued one-party rule. At the same time, in order to reverse the process of Taiwanization, former dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) “communist bandits” have cultivated a symbiotic relationship with a pan-blue camp that shows more concern for the well-being of Chinese official Zhang Ming-qing (張銘清) than Taiwanese.
In addition, the US supports the ROC government rather than the human rights of 23 million Taiwanese, because unlike the Republic of Taiwan envisioned in the 1991 Democratic Progressive Party charter, the ROC endures Chinese and US pressures and the limitations of international capitalism.
Thus, although the US, EU and Japan may acknowledge that “the ROC provides China, East Asia and elsewhere with a model for political reform,” as of this year, the PRC is also the world’s second-largest economy.
Hickey asserts that the ROC exists because “sovereignty resides in the state” that “exercises predominant authority within its borders, possesses a relatively stable population that owes its allegiance to the ROC government in Taipei, maintains formal diplomatic relations with roughly two dozen countries and strong ‘unofficial’ links with many others.”
In anticipation of the presidential election next year, voters in Taiwan should ask themselves if the ROC deserves loyalty or revolution. This government habitually denigrates its sovereignty in the international community.
For example, in its mostly failed bids to join international organizations, Taipei attempts to assure Beijing that the ROC is less than sovereign. Thus, the ROC becomes, occasionally, “Taiwan, Republic of China” or “Republic of China (Taiwan).”
Hickey doesn’t address the cowardice of the ROC state, but instead points out that the lack of official diplomatic ties between Taiwan and the US places Taiwan in the illustrious company of North Korea, Cuba and Iran — other states that also exist.
However, whether the nation-state that is Taiwan, but identifies itself as the anachronistic ROC exists, is not the question. A democratic Taiwan and/or the ROC undoubtedly exist(s). The relevant questions are: Does an independent, sovereign Taiwan have the right to exist? If so, do 23 million Taiwanese have the right to affirm de jure self-determination?
Given the rise of the PRC, the recent destruction of Taiwan’s potential military ally, Japan, and lack of diplomatic support from the US, should Taiwan wait indefinitely for conditions conducive to Taiwanese independence, or create those conditions itself?
SOPHIA SOLIVIO
Northampton, Massachusetts
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS