In a Facebook post on Nov. 14, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) questioned the fairness of the controversy surrounding his nomination to be a KMT legislator-at-large, which he felt obliged to withdraw from.
Why is it acceptable to support Taiwanese independence, while supporting unification with China invites vilification, he asked.
Taken solely at face value, his question is a reasonable one. Taiwan is a democratic nation and enjoys freedom of expression.
Both political stances — pro-unification and pro-independence, in their various forms — have support among the electorate, while the KMT has consistently been pro-unification.
His question was answered on Facebook the following day by Li Kan (李戡), the son of author, historian, independent legislator and one-time political prisoner Li Ao (李敖), who died last year.
Li Kan compared his father’s pro-unification stance with Chiu’s.
Li Ao advocated immediate unification and, at different times, spoke for the “one country, two areas” and “one country, two systems” models.
While he cannot be compared to the more controversial inclusions on the KMT’s nominee list, such as retired lieutenant general Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷), and was certainly no friend of the KMT — or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for that matter — he was nevertheless unapologetically pro-unification.
Like Wu and Chiu, Li Ao frequently visited China; unlike Wu and Chiu, he could not be accused of kowtowing to the communists — whether out of “politeness” or not — or of being their toady.
Even when he lauded the achievements of the Chinese communists, as he did in a speech at Peking University in 2005, he also spoke of the importance of free speech and liberty.
To deliver such a speech in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) China today would be a remarkable thing indeed.
Li Kan’s point was that it is not the pro-unification stance itself, it is the way you go about it.
Wu might well have been naive and bumbled his way into listening to a speech by Xi in Beijing in 2016, perhaps not.
On the other hand, Chiu has allowed himself — as has Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference member Ling Yu-shih (凌友詩), a Taiwanese who spoke at the Chinese National People’s Congress in Beijing in March to express her “great anticipation” for Taiwan’s unification with China — to be set up as a communist toady for Xi, Beijing and the “united front” effort to annex Taiwan.
He is the perfect poster boy, the “model Taiwanese compatriot,” for the propaganda efforts of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.
How much easier Chiu makes life for the office by contributing to the impression, force-fed to the Chinese public by state-affiliated media, that the only thing that prevents Taiwanese from welcoming annexation with open arms is “brainwashing” at the hands of the “corrupt” DPP administration and the “secessionists” it supports.
Li Kan also said that Chiu was guilty of misleading Chinese authorities through his actions and words about the readiness of Taiwanese to accept unification.
This is a stretch too far. Beijing has far more sophisticated ways of amassing that information; it has made an art form of it, and of interfering in Taiwan’s elections and influencing public opinion.
That said, the point stands as to why Chiu has been vilified and his brand of pro-China rhetoric rejected.
Taiwanese can, and should, show the more rationally pro-China voices in the KMT how they feel about them at the ballot box; it is only right that they rail against the more egregious cases of Beijing’s toadies and reject them even before they appear on legislator-at-large nominee lists.
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