The controversy over former army commander Justin Lin (
According to a survey conducted by a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan, an overwhelming majority of people across party lines have found Lin's defection to be unforgivable and think that the government should prosecute him.
What is prompting this sudden unity? It has to do with the severity of Lin's alleged crime.
Lin's defection occurred while he was on active duty at a front line military installation at a time when this country was still living under martial law. While Lin was certainly not the first and not the last to defect, the damage he caused to this country's national security and dignity was devastating at the time.
Lin said that he was motivated by a desire to study and to do some good for those on the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
While these reasons seem to suggest no malice, Lin could have resigned from the army and then, as many others have done before and since his defection, enter China via a third country. What made Lin's act inexcusable was the manner in which he defected. In view of his egregious violation of the trust placed in him, Lin should understand the resentment that those in Taiwan feel toward him.
To the supporters of Taiwan independence, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are clearly two separate countries that remain politically and militarily hostile toward one another. In these people's eyes, Lin committed an act of treason by defecting to an enemy state. Their anger and disappointment is understandable.
But what about supporters of unification? Isn't China the sacred motherland they pine for? What compelling reasons do they have for taking offense at Lin's action?
The reason may reside in the fact that Lin's defection took place in 1979, while the KMT was still in power. To these people, Lin's grave sin was a betrayal of the KMT regime. Most, if not all, of these people fall into one of three groups -- those who retreated to Taiwan from China with the KMT, the descendants of the first group, or those successfully brainwashed by KMT propaganda. They have undying loyalty to the KMT, which in their heart will forever remain the only legitimate ROC government. Many of them now support unification because, to them, it is the next-best choice to KMT rule. Opposition lawmakers therefore strongly oppose Lin's return.
Interestingly, some lawmakers from the ruling party seem relatively sympathetic to Lin, which is surprising since one would expect exactly the opposite reaction, given the ongoing political animosity between China and Taiwan.
But, upon closer examination, it isn't difficult to understand the situation.
Despite Lin's noble explanation for his defection, his traitorous decision may have been prompted by his unhappiness with the status quo and a deep disappointment with the KMT regime. That is a sentiment that many political dissidents who have since become Taiwanese lawmakers may also share. But at the moment of truth, that sentiment caused Lin to defect to China while local lawmakers joined, at a great price, the Taiwan independence movement.
In view of the sensitive political issues and mixed feelings stirred up by the Lin case, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) decided to leave the matter in the hands of the law.
The rest of us need more time to ponder the implications of this incident. Hopefully, it will help Taiwanese develop a better sense of national identity.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS