More on Chen's remarks
Taiwan's media seem to have learned well from America's media. Take a statement that doesn't hold much weight by itself and make it as big an issue as possible. President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) statement "Taiwan and China on the other side, each side is a country" is a strong statement when you look at it alone, without considering the response.
The DPP's quick response was, "Unfortunately, [Chen's comments] were widely misinterpreted as calling for a change to the current status." Further the DPP's spokesperson said that Chen's comments had been "over-interpreted" by the media. This is similar to what happens in the US when President George W. Bush says something out of line with official policy. All of Bush's press relations people say he has been misinterpreted, and even go as far as to completely change the meaning of what was said.
China's response is interesting -- a statement that basically said Chen's remarks were irresponsible and a source of destabilization of cross-strait relations. They said it was bad for all Chinese people. I read Beijing's official response and there was no mention of military action, no specific threats. Last time Beijing took this kind of issue seriously they made specific military threats. This time they slapped Chen's hands like he was a bad boy who had uttered a profanity in front of his parents. They didn't take his remarks seriously.
Basically, this shows that what Chen thinks, of and by itself, has little influence on the real political and economic power holders. The DPP said he was mistaken. The opposition party said he was irresponsible. Perhaps most importantly, repre-sentatives from both parties have said he should apologize for making remarks that could create economic instability. Notice, both political camps (and China) agree on the money.
Until you see Taiwanese money and businesses pulling out of China, there's nothing to worry about. The people with the power and the money are the people who have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo.
Daniel Fernandez
Costa Mesa, California
President Chen should clarify that "one country on each side" is in essence equivalent to the status quo. What is the status quo? The status quo is that on the east side of the Taiwan Strait, there is a country named the ROC (Taiwan). On the west side, there is a country called the PRC. Each country exists as a separate political entity and sovereign state. This is the fact that Chen illustrated to the world with clear arithmetic.
In A-bian's statement, there was not a hint of agitating Taiwan independence. What the opposition parties are trying to do is simply to distort and discredit the remarks. Can the opposition parties deny the existence of the ROC or PRC? If they can't, then how many countries are there on either side of the Taiwan Strait is a very simple question. The answer is obvious and A-bian scored 100 percent, but PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) scored no points. One plus one equals two. It is plain and simple.
Joshua Tin
Boonton, New Jersey
In my opinion that Chen made his pro-independence remarks because the conservatives in power are giving him private assurances of US military support in the case of any hostile Chinese military action. The US is now holding hearings in Congress about a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq, but I think it is a smoke screen for a military mobilization against the PRC. Beijing has drawn a bright line that Chen has deliberately walked over. I can't imagine Chen making such reckless remarks without US backing.
Brad Arnold
St Louis Park, Minnesota
Do the people of Taiwan ever wonder why, when the truth of Taiwan's identity is spoken, Taiwan's stock market strug-gles? First, it was President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) redefinition of cross-strait relations as being "state-to-state" in nature and now Chen's "one state on either side of the Taiwan Strait." It is sad when stating such truths end up hurting Taiwan and scaring its people. This sad result is because Taiwanese people live in constant fear of China, especially in recent years as Taiwan has become more and more democratic.
In the past, foreigners have determined the fate of the island. Now it is time for Taiwan's people to determine the fate of Taiwan before history repeats itself and the people of Taiwan find themselves subordinates once again.
Chen and Lee have a vision for Taiwan as the America of the East, whose people may live in freedom and peace, respected by other nations, and able to make choices for themselves without harassment from other nations. However, such dreams and visions are not free. The people of Taiwan will have to work and pay the price for this vision if they are to see it realized for their grandchildren.
Chen does not wish to see Taiwan suffer. He is aware of the price and only asks for people to have faith in him as the captain. My only hope is that the people of Taiwan do not forgo this opportunity for long-term prosperity out of fear of the short-term cost.
Lin Chung-I
Washington State
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS