A suggestion for Xi
I have a suggestion for Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that may help him cope with his disappointment with Taiwan’s lack of interest in his unification proposals.
He should consult with the UN for the staging of a UN-organized referendum of the Chinese people as to whether they would prefer to be governed by the unelected Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or by a democratically elected government in a multiparty system. There is little doubt what the result would be.
The result would also indicate why the people of democratic Taiwan want nothing to do with the CCP and its thuggery.
Which brings me to the point of legitimacy. One of the historic hallmarks of a legitimate government is that it governs with the consent of the governed. At some stage the governed must have demonstrated their willingness to accept the governing entity as the entity charged with making laws for the benefit of the governed.
The CCP, as the government of China, has not at any stage possessed any of the accepted hallmarks of legitimacy. The nations of the world should recognize this reality in dealings with the regime.
The CCP may rule China by force, but as a “government,” it is totally illegitimate.
Gavan Duffy
Queensland, Australia
Millions of virtuous Chinese
In his well-known poem, chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東) wrote: “Spring breeze sways tens of thousands of willow branches in the holy land of China. This great land is brimming with 600 million virtuous people [春風楊柳萬千條, 六億神州盡舜堯].” So impressive is the poem that many Chinese today take pride in it. However, as many of us know, the facts point to the other direction.
We were on an airplane last month with hundreds of Chinese tourists traveling from Shanghai to Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. The group was so rowdy throughout the flight that it became a supersized nightmare. I felt like I was in an Asian night market filled with haggling customers. I have traveled a lot, but never once have I ever encountered such a large group of unruly and disorderly people.
The toilets were singularly filthy: People urinated onto the commode with the toilet seat down. Some passengers on the aisle seats refused to move to let those at window seats pass. The most annoying occurrence during the trip was cutting in line.
I tried to prevent a middle-aged burly woman from jumping the queue at a five-star restaurant. I told her in Chinese: “Line starts there.” Guess what? She just ignored me. There were two unruly tourists who even entered the server’s workstation trying to get drinks. When stopped by servers, they were puzzled, not knowing why.
There were many other mishaps during the tour: The tourists stooped to sniff food at buffet counters, talked in a condescending manner to Sri Lankan servers, refused to tip and took all the hot water from the container with large insulated bottles. Last but not least, they snatched and wasted foods like a swarm of locusts.
I heard one Sri Lankan butler whispering: “Why are there so many damn Chinese?” Unfortunately Sri Lanka needs tourist money to boost its economy. In return China wants to have close strategic ties with Sri Lanka.
I have no doubt that the behaviors of these “virtuous people” have cast genuinely negative images onto the people of Sri Lanka. How can these jumped-up vulgarians be virtuous at all? Chairman Mao simply used these people to serve his own personal gain.
On the way home from Shanghai to Taiwan, the flight was very quiet and I was back to the mode of tranquility and orderliness. It was like a tale of two cities. I felt the familiar environment of normalcy and security on the plane that I am used to.
I venture to say that a sizeable portion of people in China cannot be considered virtuous. Some are loud-mouthed simpletons; some are selfish and self-centered to the core. Some are patently dishonest and lying like a carpet. Red Guard-like behaviors are simply unfit for any modern society.
Chairman Mao must have been out of his mind or out to deliberately mislead his people in that poem. To claim that mainland China is brimming with 600 million virtuous people, mama mia. Give me a break. When pigs fly.
Richard Yang
New Taipei City
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing