The opposition's true colors
Though I may not agree with the KMT's and the PFP's policies towards China, because we live in a democratic and free society, they can represent these ideals. They strive for a "Great China," ie the PRC, and truly believe that Taiwan is a non-negotiable part of it. Even though history does not back their claims (Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC), they are free to say what they want, even if it is historically imprecise.
Nevertheless, what they can not do is to look down on the citizens of the country they are living in and their president. With an eye always fixed on Beijing and their feet dancing to the PRC's tunes, they are not helping the citizens of this country. With their attitude and words they are clearly despising the 23 million people of this nation. Their words are twisted and their agenda is hidden.
If sincere, they must go to Beijing (as so often they do) and surrender. It is their civil war (KMT vs the Chinese Communist Party) that is still unfinished; Taiwan was never a part of that war. If they believe that there is only one country that truly represents both sides of the Strait, which is what they imply when they fuss about President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) words, the one that is recognized in the international arena is the PRC. So they should go and apply for citizenship there.
Perhaps a fund could be created to help those who want to be citizens of the PRC but lack the means to do it. I know of quite a lot of Taiwanese who would be glad to donate.
Truly, there is "one country on either side," one is called the PRC, the other the ROC. Both are independent and sovereign countries. If they do not back this statement, they must decide with their hearts which Constitution they back: the PRC's or the ROC's.
Both the KMT and the PFP must be careful with semantics. Please do not use the word "reunification or unification" with China, a word-trap also for the TSU and the DPP. Taiwan has never been a part of "that" China and the ROC has long ended its absurd claim to be the government of all of China. More accurate would be to use the word annexation. And for this, I think, a basic agreement from the citizens of the ROC should be sought through a referendum. If Taiwan is to be annexed by the PRC, it means that its citizens will switch allegiance from the ROC government to the PRC one.
What Chen was saying with the "one country on each side" remark is no more than the "status quo" we have now.
If in the future we want to change the name of this country to make it more clear in the international arena or to better represent the real situation of the citizens of the country, a referendum is the best way.
Both the KMT and the PFP should visit a psychiatrist, but one not based in Beijing, where they suffer the same illness. They are enchanted by the idea that Taiwan is part of the PRC (or in other words, China). If they believe that, they must tell it to their constituents. Only then will we know their true colors. Maybe then their constituents will be aware of their intentions: annexation of the island by the PRC and the end of the ROC. Even better, they can try to convince the PRC to change its name to the ROC, and let Chen be the president of their "Great China."
Joking apart, at least the DPP and the TSU agenda is clear and plain; get up and let's transform the ROC into the Taiwan Republic. This may be bold, but at least they do not lie to their constituents, the citizens of Taiwan or the rest of the world.
Francisco Carin Garcia
Taishan, Taipei County
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
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
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS