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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of