We teach our children that if they want to dream, then dream big, not only because they have the right to dream, but if they work hard and opportunity allows, one day that dream might just come true.
For most people a dream is an aspiration to achieve something they desire. They work toward that dream, hoping to fulfill it someday.
While the American Dream embodies the possibility that anything can happen with enough hard work and the right attitude, and the Chinese Dream — a phrase popularized by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — paints the bold picture of the rise of the Middle Kingdom, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) raised the topic of a “Taiwanese Dream” in a recent speech.
For Su, four elements make up the Taiwanese Dream: sovereignty, human rights, security and the economy. Whether Su’s observation matches the wishes of the Taiwanese people is debatable, but one thing is sure: For the past 400 years, all that most Taiwanese ever wanted was to be left alone and free from foreign control so that they could make the island prosper by themselves.
In the past century, under the Japanese colonial government and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, Taiwanese wanted to be their own master and decide their own future, whatever that may be.
This humble wish was not granted. The first opportunity that did not allow it was when World War II ended and the KMT government and troops took over. The second was in October 1971, when Resolution 2758 of the UN General Assembly recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole representative of the whole of China. Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) turned down a US-led proposal of dual representatives.
The KMT regime’s loss of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and the General Order No. 1 by US General Douglas McArthur brought an influx of more than 2 million troops and refugees into Taiwan.
Also introduced for the first time was the Republic of China (ROC) system, including the government and the Constitution, as well as the “one China” ideology that presumably recognizes Taiwan as part of a China awaiting eventual unification.
Since then, the ROC system and the “one China” principle have been two chains tying Taiwanese hands, preventing them from chasing their dream.
Former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung’s (吳伯雄) reaffirmation of the “one China” framework in his recent meeting with Xi along with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) reiteration that cross-strait relations are not state-to-state relations, both suggest that unification or a certain degree of political integration is the only way to go.
The gravity of these statements should be seen in the light of Su’s Taiwanese Dream.
No one else described Taiwanese aspiration better than the late World United Formosans for Independence chairman Ng Chiau-tong (黃昭堂), who said that “The ROC is like a cap on the top of our head. If it’s rainy, we’ll have to wear it for now, but we are waiting for a sunny day to take it off.”
The fate of the Taiwanese people has once again been decided by others, with their options narrowed down and swiped away. They are drifting further away from their dream.
Parents do not tell their children that they should only dream of being engineers or computer programmers and not artists or writers. Likewise, the Taiwanese people should be entitled to pursue their dreams as Americans and Chinese do, even if the political aspiration is to amend the Constitution or change the name of the country.
With the KMT government’s current designs, Taiwanese may be losing their third opportunity to work to achieve their dream. There might never be a fourth.
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS