"Ten minus five equals five" is a mathematical equation. But if we get rid of five out of 10 political dissidents, the answer is not necessarily five. Political issues can not be regarded as math equations. The Kaohsiung Incident, which happened 20 years ago, explains this theory very clearly.
The KMT authorities thought that they could use coercive power to suppress the tangwai (
The event, also unexpectedly, aroused awareness of the need for reform within the political system. The trials brought to the forefront human right lawyers and the families of the victims, many of whom took over the mission of politicalreforms and played major roles in the democratic movement later on.
The DPP, founded in 1986, brought together the tangwai forces and made them the first political opposition party in Taiwan. This development was totally unexpected by the KMT, who believed the opposition could be wiped out by suppression.
Another lesson is that individuals with hindsight should not stamp out the farsighted.
What the staff members of the Formosa magazine (
These objectives, which were labeled as the conspiracies of "ambitious schemers" 20 years ago, were subsequently carried out in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then how should we characterize these reformers? Should they be called "ambitious schemers" or "farsighted?"
It is reasonable to be one of the people who are slow in seeing things. Yet if you happen to be one of the slow ones, then you probably try to suppress farsighted ideas by any means. Sometime later, however, you might realize that the farsighted people's ideas were actually good and you start to follow in their footsteps. This is not only embarrassing, it also delays progress.
We can find numerous examples of this in Chinese history. One of the most well known is the Constitutional Reform and Mod-ernization Movement(
Tsu Hsi, astonished by the progress of Western civilization, finally realized the need for reform. She even released an imperial edict to acknowledge her blunder. It came as little surprise that Tsu Hsi's reforms were almost identical to those called for by Liang and Kang.
Tsu Hsi's embarrassing experience reminds me a lot of James Soong (
The difference between Tsu Hsi and Soong is that at least Tsu Hsi was courageous enough to admit her mistakes. The only thing Soong has done is to shift his own responsibilities onto others.
There is no denying that the calls from the era of the Formosa magazine are now considered natural and correct political trends. If this is the way it should be, what was the point of creating all the fuss in the past? By the same logic, farsighted requests such as entering the UN under the name of "Taiwan" and establishing a new and independent country are still thwarted by the KMT and the New Party (including the Soong camp).
Instead of accepting the calls only after they become compelling, we should embrace good ideas as they come about.
Lee Shai-feng is a professor in the Department of History at Shih Hsin University.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic