During a videoconference with academics and officials at Stanford University in California on Tuesday last week, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and students coming here to study will witness freedom in Taiwan, and will become seeds for Chinese democracy when they return to China, which will be beneficial to the promotion of human rights in that nation.
Many members of the pan-green camp have also linked Chinese tourists and students in Taiwan with the spreading of freedom and democracy in China. While this idea may seem correct, it is actually wrong, because it treats a possibility of something happening as something that has in fact already taken place.
While contact may bring about change, and while lack of contact could mean that there will be no change at all, the variables that are key to deciding policy are the effects of that contact, the type of contact that is effective and the time that passes before change occurs.
If increasing the number of Chinese students or tourists who have been to Taiwan can bring about democratic reform in China, then perhaps we should ask just how much democratic reform has taken place in China as a result of Taiwanese businesspeople plying their trade there for decades.
Also, over the past 30 years many Chinese students have studied in the US, which raises the question whether China has become more democratic as a result of those people returning home, or if there are now more political restrictions in China.
If we view furthering democracy and human rights as an important mission in our dealings with Beijing, then we should actively support those individuals or groups that are promoting democracy and human rights inside China.
We should also include democracy, human rights and the rule of law in our agenda for dialogue with China, and we should make visits to human rights activists there an essential part of official visits to China, actively supporting them when they are oppressed and helping their families with their living expenses.
We should also pay special attention to meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and apart from focusing on the issue of human rights, we could make a list of China’s political prisoners and then use that as a standard for assessing democracy there.
What is important is that we support and assist human rights activists and independent academics working in China, for, after all, these people are key to furthering Chinese democracy.
Since the link between Chinese students or tourists and furthering democracy in China is not prominent, we should focus on what goals we hope to reach by attracting Chinese students and tourists. Having clear goals is key on this front.
We should not talk about how our policies for admitting Chinese students to study in Taiwan are intended to increase democracy in China, on the one hand, while on the other we ignore imprisoned Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), use various reasons to keep Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer from visiting Taiwan and stop Falun Gong practitioners from protesting during visits by senior Chinese officials.
If we really believe that promoting democracy in China is beneficial to Taiwan and cross-strait relations, then we should start by helping those who are working inside China to promote democracy.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Drew Cameron
In December 2001, this newspaper ran an editorial with a headline similar to this one. Taiwan, along with the rest of the world, has changed immeasurably since then, but adultery remains a criminal offense in Taiwan under Article 239 of the Criminal Code. This nation is one of the few in the world to still consider adultery a criminal, rather than civil, offense, with punishment of up to one year in prison, but hopefully this could finally change in the foreseeable future. The Council of Grand Justices on Tuesday is to begin hearing arguments on the constitutionality of that article, following petitions
In an authoritarian environment such as in China, information is strictly controlled and, if suited to the leadership, is presented as the truth to its unsuspecting citizens, who do not have the wherewithal to check the veracity of such information. One such unsubstantiated piece of information was served by a Chinese official who claimed that the COVID-19 disease, which has taken a heavy toll on human lives and thrown the world into complete turmoil, had originated from the US and was brought to China by the US Army. The COVID-19 fiasco had made China’s leadership, including Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), appear
Like the Titanic striking a massive iceberg in 1912, a novel coronavirus, later named COVID-19, struck Wuhan in China late last year. First revealed by local doctors in early December, the virus spread like a global tidal wave and has now infected residents in 152 of the 193 UN member nations. Amid the gloomy scenarios painted by traditional and social media, the world’s policymakers, as well as individual citizens, must pay close attention to what some governments did to restrain the pandemic, and examine why it took such a heavy toll on other countries. The world can learn from the first regions
Taiwan and many other countries have set up measures, such as travel bans, border closures, curfews and lockdowns, to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. On Wednesday last week, Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) announced that effective the following day, foreign travelers would be denied entry into Taiwan to battle the sharp increase in COVID-19 cases over the previous couple of days. European countries and North America also closed their borders to restrict arrivals by non-residents. By integrating its National Health Insurance and immigration and customs databases, the government identified cases with real-time alerts during clinical visits based