In recent years, an increasing number of Chinese academics and journalists have become proud to call themselves “public intellectuals.” In their mind, the title of “public intellectual” carries two meanings: First, these people believe they represent the public interest and thus they have a duty to criticize government policies.Second, they think they are more intelligent and knowledgeable than lay people, so they are responsible for enlightening the public and teaching them how to participate in public affairs.
Generally, these Chinese public intellectuals, who support democracy, have promoted social liberalization in China. However, their narrow--mindedness and ignorance have been exposed in recent events.
Since 2009, more than 30 Tibetans have self-immolated in protest against China’s political, cultural and religious suppression in Tibet. Facing such a severe humanitarian crisis, while the international community strongly condemns the Chinese government’s Tibet policy, most Chinese public intellectuals have remained silent.
Even though the public intellectuals may fear the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is still hard to understand why these public intellectuals and a large number of their fans are reluctant to speak out even in cyberspace. It seems that Chinese, about whom these public intellectuals are concerned and would like to speak for, do not include -Tibetans. Or perhaps, the public intellectuals insist they should criticize the Chinese government to protect the interests of all Chinese, but the precondition for making such criticism is that Tibetans, or any other non-Han, must accept that “XXX is an inseparable part of China’s territory since antiquity.”
In other words, for who refuse to accept this, their right to life and their other basic human rights do not belong to the “public interest” that the public intellectuals would like to protect.
As an Internet article said: “Chinese public intellectuals are collectively playing dumb about the Tibetan self-immolation incidents. Their silence is a form of conspiracy. They are as shameless as the murderers.”
Chinese public intellectuals are also ignorant of Taiwanese issues. Normally, the public intellectuals praise Taiwan’s democratic experience and hope Taiwan can help China’s democratization. However, they are not able to propose any approach, so they have to place their hope in the CCP’s “one country, two systems” formula. Therefore, the public intellectuals are actually agents of the CCP’s propaganda for Taiwan.
In the wake of former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung’s (吳伯雄) “one country, two areas” proposal to Beijing, the public intellectuals’ respect for the KMT, as well as their hope for a so-called “third CCP-KMT cooperation” and “one country, two systems” have climaxed.
One famous public intellectual wrote on the Internet: “China includes the mainland and Taiwan, which is the part that has a better system, while the other should learn from it.”
Another public intellectual said: “When the elected Taiwanese government claims the mainland as an inseparable part of the nation, the legitimacy of the non-elected people’s government is challenged. The KMT government should not restrict the presidential election to only the Taiwan area. Instead, it should organize elections in both Taiwan and on the mainland. Therefore the jurisdictional territory of Taiwan would expand to the whole of China. The future China will include both the mainland and Taiwan.”
When these public intellectuals take for granted that Taiwan must play a positive factor in China’s democratization and that Taiwan must be included in a democratized China, they contemptuously ignore Taiwan’s national interests and Taiwanese national identity. Chinese public intellectuals should be reminded of the following facts:
First, Taiwan is an independent country and it owes no legal duty to help China improve its democracy.
Second, the “one country, two systems” formula would not result in a democratic system in China. The reality in Hong Kong is that the CCP has never allowed Hong Kong to govern itself without interference and that the territory is being “mainlandized.” One prominent example is Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), who was Beijing’s preferred candidate for chief executive despite his low popularity and won election because of the CCP’s manipulation.
“One country, two systems” is just a cheap trick, and its ultimate purpose is to “reunify China,” which the CCP claims as its one core interest.
However, as Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo (戴秉國) once stated: “China’s No. 1 core interest is to maintain its fundamental system.”
Obviously, a democratic system in a “reunified China,” something the Chinese public intellectuals daydream about, goes against the CCP’s No. 1 core interest and will never be allowed.
Even worse, the CCP’s ambition, power and its practical actions to pursue these core interests pose a huge threat to Taiwan’s democracy. The KMT’s “one country, two areas” proposal is as stupid as the illusions of Chinese public intellectuals.
Zaijun Yuan is a political researcher based in Hong Kong. Mattel Hsu is a doctoral candidate in politics at Monash University in Australia.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry