Delight, anger, sorrow and happiness are normal human emotions. However, after suffering heavy oppression from a foreign colonial government, Taiwanese are only capable of feeling sorrow and lack the ability to, or do not dare, get angry.
Despite having no new convincing evidence, the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) recently and unexpectedly indicted former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). Taiwanese should be angry about this instead of just lamenting the sorrows of being Taiwanese.
If we only feel sorrow when we see those in power carrying out political persecution, then the poison has gone too deep — we are experiencing the wrong emotions. People in Middle Eastern and North African nations, such as Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya, who suffered corruption and political persecution for years under the highly oppressive rule of their dictators reacted not with sorrow, but with anger. The result was the “Jasmine Revolution.”
In a democracy, anger does not have to lead to revolution because anger can be expressed peacefully and voters can vote their leaders out of office.
The democratic system that the forefathers of Taiwan’s democracy movement shed blood and sweat for was established with the aim of creating a fair society in which everyone has the equality of opportunity. Lee nominated James Soong (宋楚瑜), now chairman of the People First Party, to run for the now-scrapped position of Governor of Taiwan Province and teamed up with Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), now president, to promote the “New Taiwanese” concept. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) appointed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politician Tang Fei (唐飛) as his first premier. These were all strategies aimed at encouraging a sense of pride in Taiwan while recognizing the different ethnic and political groups that coexist in the country.
Lee and Chen worked hard to secure Taiwan’s independent status and their actions had the same goal as the pro-Taiwan policy of “defending Taiwan through reform” that former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) promoted after the Republic of China was kicked out of the UN. Now, though, Chen is in jail and Lee has been indicted.
Taiwanese do not believe that those two former presidents should have immunity from the judicial process just because they contributed to the establishment of Taiwan’s democracy and the protection of its sovereignty. However, they firmly believe that the judiciary should use one set of standards and base all charges on concrete evidence, and that those with different opinions should not be persecuted because it suits the interests of those in power.
Ma constantly breaks his promises and he is incompetent. He has betrayed Taiwan’s sovereignty, stunted its economic growth and caused the gap between rich and poor to widen. For these things, Taiwanese should be angry.
Ma uses the judiciary as a tool and had nothing to say when members of the Koo (辜) family who were witnesses in Chen’s case said that prosecutors instructed them to give false statements. Now Lee has been indicted without any new evidence being submitted. These actions imply that Ma is out to eliminate pro-localization leaders. For this, Taiwanese should be angry.
We have seen over the past three years that only a pro--localization government is capable of enacting reform and upholding Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence. We must abandon Ma to save Taiwan.
Abandoning Ma and implementing reform to protect Taiwan are two strategies that will shine brightly in the history of Taiwan’s struggle for sovereignty and independence.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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