An open letter
Dear Judge Hung Ying-hua (洪英花):
We the undersigned express our appreciation for the courageous efforts you have made in support of justice and the rule of law in Taiwan.
We applaud your willingness to challenge the legality of the conviction of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). That you did so as a member of Taiwan’s judicial establishment, acting as early as 2009, called for an abiding sense of duty and exceptional fortitude. For this we salute you.
Recently, you enumerated the violations of the UN and domestic guarantees of human rights in the substandard medical treatment given to Chen in prison and called upon the Ministry of Justice to grant him medical parole according to law.
We are concerned that Chen’s health has deteriorated since his incarceration.
In a Nov. 22, 2010, article in the Liberty Times [the Taipei Times’ sister paper], you advocated due process and judicial independence and lamented their absence in Chen’s trial.
We have also been troubled by these aspects of Taiwan’s legal system.
We were alarmed that you were removed from the positions of court director and chief judge in the Shilin District Court after the publication of the mentioned article.
We admire your perseverance and pledge our full support for your commitments past, present and future to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice in Taiwan.
Michael Danielsen, Peter Chow, Reverend Michael Stainton, June Teufel Dreyer, Arthur Waldron, Wen-yen Chen, David Kilgour, John Tkacik, Mark Kao, Gerrit van der Wees, Richard Kagan, Clive Ansley, Terri Giles, Jerome Keating, Brock Freeman, Coen Blaauw, Christian Schafferer, Michael Richardson, Gordon Chang, Bill Hipwell, Peter Tague, Ross Terrill, The Very Rev. Bruce McLeod, Michael Yahuda, Daniel Lynch, Michael Rand Hoare, et al, Rev. Milo Thornberry and Mr. Brian Benedictus.
Solutions to ‘one China’
An editorial discussed Representative to the US King Pu-tsung’s (金溥聰) strategic policy preference towards China as “strategic ambiguity” (Editorial, Feb. 8, page 8).
This policy enables China and Taiwan to interpret “China” respectively, notwithstanding China’s efforts to maintain the so-called “1992 consensus.” In this way, “strategic ambiguity” provides a bulwark against Chinese claims over the nation and shields Taiwanese from China’s rigid policy.
However, the author concludes that ambiguity is unpalatable to the nation, because the international status of the Republic of China (Taiwan) is uncertain and so is Taiwan’s maritime claim over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), its constitution, tax infrastructure and valuation of human rights.
The optimal policy for the nation is one that secures its identity and embodies a confident sense of certainty.
In an arresting monograph, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to former US president Jimmy Carter, offers a strategic view to consider in Taiwan’s geopolitical strategy: “one China, several systems,” instead of the “one China” framework. This does not imply that the nation will be absorbed into China, but gives a practical solution in the event of an amalgamation.
It acknowledges past ambiguous interactions and “agreements,” while securing a certain future for the nation.
Brzezinski highlights the unique framework of a “one China” with respective social, government and military arrangements. Taiwan would remain democratic in its values and could maintain its commitment to consolidating its military.
He points to the case of Hong Kong retaining many of its democratic values, though it could be that Taiwan would be its own case for amiable conflict resolution.
The suggestion broached is not without much contention and is in need of elaboration, yet it is perhaps a viable option to consider.
The author of the Feb. 8 editorial cited Archbishop Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Although the foregoing labels the party in opposition an “oppressor,” a point of view contingent on the reader, “strategic ambiguity” or the quality of vagueness as it pertains to statehood and policy is manifestly unfavorable to Taiwan’s future.
Brzezinski’s notion of “one China, several systems” is one possible solution to a major flashpoints in the Trans-Pacific region, one that could finally safeguard a concerned Taiwan and ameliorate China’s nationalistic impetus, remedying cross-strait relations.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his