Just as there is only one UK in the world, there is only one China in the world, but the two countries are very different in terms of systems, organization and respect for basic human rights.
The upcoming referendum on Scotland’s independence has highlighted how valuable it is that people in a democracy have the right to make their own free choices and to decide whether or not they are willing to unite with someone else.
Scotland has long been a part of Great Britain, but there is now a push to separate it from the UK and once again become an independent country, and last year, the government passed the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill to set the rules for the referendum.
The two sides are now making every effort to gain support in the hope of winning the referendum scheduled for Sept. 18.
The UK government should be praised for its confidence in allowing the Scottish people to decide, without worrying that they might leave the nest for good. Scotland is also upholding the lofty principle of allowing local residents to decide: Anyone born in Scotland but who lives elsewhere is not allowed to vote, while anyone born outside of Scotland but now residing there is allowed to vote.
Since the Scottish people are free to choose independence in this civilized manner, the losing side cannot complain and such a union or separation is likely to be long-lasting and harmonious.
China has proclaimed that it is on the rise and it is establishing its Confucius Institutes across the world.
In the 1970s, Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) criticized both former Chinese vice premier Lin Biao (林彪) and Confucius, causing former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to launch a “cultural renaissance” campaign in Taiwan.
At the moment, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is trying to monopolize Confucius on China’s behalf, and Beijing even demanded that the European Association for Chinese Studies (EACS) tear out the pages related to the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange in its brochure at the EACS’ 20th conference in Portugal last month.
It is said that Confucius attached great importance to a “benevolent rule” that upholds righteousness and morality, but from Mao to Xi, China’s promotion of “one China” and its Confucius Institutes reflects a “hegemonic rule.” They are simply trying pass off their tricks as virtue.
The fact is that “one China” is not really a voluntary union formed by different peoples. Instead, it is formed by force and oppression.
Internally, the Chinese government is oppressing Tibet, Xinjiang and even Hong Kong to prevent them from declaring independence.
Externally, it claims that the future of Taiwan should be decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese people, who have nothing to do with Taiwan.
“One China” refers to the People’s Republic of China, but it does not care about its people and is not a republic. If we portray the UK and China as two birdcages, then the door of the first birdcage is open and birds can come and go freely, while the door of the second birdcage is closed and all the birds are locked up inside.
Surprisingly, Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) praised the policy of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” in May, claiming that the policy could please China and put Taiwan at ease by putting disputes aside.
His remarks are scarier than Ghost Month.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS