This year, in fact within two days of each other, two hugely important political events will occur. For these two events to feature within the same year is rare indeed. They are also bound to set up an interesting contrast between the authentic way to rule on behalf of the people and the fraudulent way.
I refer, of course, to the US presidential election and the “changing of the guard” during the 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), when a new set of Chinese leaders will take over.
Current US President Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, hit the campaign trail some time ago. The two men have been weaving their way through the country, explaining their policies and lambasting those of their opponent. The current resident of the White House has the advantage, but also has more to defend. The challenger has license to lay into his opponent’s record, to distance himself from his policies and to appeal to the electorate. He faces less pressure.
People in the US have no need for Confucian ideas regarding benevolent rulers. They have the luxury of having the right to vote and a system that allows them to make up their own minds, freely and independently.
The Chinese communists claim that the autocratic system over which they preside is actually democratic; posing and posturing and saying that they are governing on behalf of the people.
When good old Confucius (孔子) was talking about “governing on behalf of the people,” he was talking about the benevolent ruler who was content to be good to the people due to his own magnanimity.
He was not talking about people having the freedom to vote as a fundamental human right.
The handover of power in China is controlled by a small number of people, behind closed doors. The public at large do not get a say in the process, but they do have to deal with the consequences. Representatives of the party merely rubber-stamp the decision and clap their hands to signal their agreement. There is only one name on the list; which they are obliged to choose — and if they are not happy with it? Tough.
If the Chinese communists were really committed to governing on behalf of the people they would follow the US example: Field two candidates and let the Chinese people make a free and fair choice between them.
There could be Xi Jinping (習近平) representing power, privilege and capitalism, allowing the exploitation of workers and creating a poverty gap, contesting the leadership with the Maoist Bo Xilai (薄熙來), with his communist songs and anti-corruption drive.
However, that will not happen. A select few among the communists can keep Bo locked away while they deliver Xi safely to the top spot. All in the interest of creating a “harmonious society” in which the dictates of the ruler are not easily challenged.
US democracy puts the people in the driving seat, while transitions of power within the CCP consist of having a small number of people place the ruler on the throne.
There is a clear distinction between the two.
While China’s online community are envious of the US, the friends of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) talk in the UN of how “the Chinese people” are seeking “unification.”
The misconception is because of the route down which Ma is taking Taiwan.
Taiwanese, after many years of struggle and sacrifice in the fight for freedom and democracy, would surely not choose a road that leads to slavery.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with