In defiance of democracy and public opinion, deep-blue forces advocate that there is only one China and eventual unification is inevitable, that the Republic of China (ROC) Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are both China’s armies, that cross-strait relations are domestic affairs involving international factors and that without the ROC Constitution it would be very difficult to advance cross-strait relations. These dark-blue opinions display a kidnapper mentality.
The deep-blue supporters mainly come from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Huang Fu-hsing (黃復興) branch, a special branch of the KMT whose members are military veterans or their family members. The implied meaning of the name is “descendants of the Yan and Yellow emperors; revive China.” From its inception, Huang Fu-hsing consisted mostly of key players from the army’s KMT party headquarters, popularly known as the Wang Shih-kai (王師凱) headquarters, which had an even more imperial ring to it and was specifically established to ensure loyalty to the party. They fled to Taiwan together with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), proudly carrying the anti-communist banner, eventually became the rulers of Taiwan, and rapidly rose in rank and status. Now, as they approach old age, they wish to abduct Taiwan and accept China’s annexation of the nation.
Leading a delegation to Beijing last month, Hsu Li-nung (許歷農), a retired general and former director of the General Political Warfare Department who once taught us to hate the “Chinese bandits,” told a forum that “unification is the common goal of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.”
He also said: “Taiwan’s desire to retake the mainland, to restore its territory [to the ROC], and especially to unify China in accordance with Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) Three Principles of the People is also an attempt to achieve national unification.”
Give me a break. On what basis do the elderly members of Huang Fu-hsing claim the Taiwanese desire to retake China and seek “national unification”? As diehard ROC loyalists, why do these old men not simply say the ROC and Chiang seek to retake China? Absorbing the support of just about anyone they could get their hands on to help them keep up a semblance of legitimacy, the KMT engaged in divisive colonial rule for quite a long time, but who among these people that the single-party state elitists believe to be substandard actually sing the same tune as the old men of Huang Fu-hsing?
When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defeated the KMT in China, Chiang and acting president Lee Tsung-jen (李宗仁), were both forced to flee China. Both of them clearly understood that Taiwan was not legally part of China. However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a second-generation KMT refugee, uses the fact that a few Taiwanese “representatives” participated in the establishment of the ROC Constitution as a pretext for forcibly hijacking Taiwan based on this Constitution and returning us to the dead-end “one China” of the Chinese Civil War era.
The civil war that took place between the KMT and the CCP had absolutely nothing to do with Taiwan, yet Taiwan was still somehow sacrificed for this specific war. The regime of the two Chiangs essentially hijacked Taiwan in an attempt to retake the mainland and restore it to the ROC. Ma and the rest of the deep-blue Mainlanders have hijacked Taiwan and are about to accept China’s annexation — and what an anti-democratic evil they are in the process of committing.
During Taiwan’s Martial Law era, we suffered the tragedy of the persecuted as we were coerced into yelling their slogans about “retaking the mainland.” On the other hand, if we freely choose now to betray ourselves in our own democracy, we are simply digging our own grave.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY KYLE JEFFCOAT
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS