To begin with, I want to make it clear that I am a proponent of unification -- I support unification idealistically at the current stage and think that Taiwan and China should unify when conditions are ripe.
Although I am a strong proponent of unification and believe that Taiwanese will benefit more from unification than from independence, I must say that no one has the right to assert that Taiwanese independence is not an option. It is unbelievable that some Taiwanese politicians, after two decades of democracy in Taiwan, are still unable to grasp such a simple and clear idea.
When reading Chinese novels of chivalry, we often come across scenes in which the hero allows his or her opponent to choose the weapons they want to employ in a fight. These heroes know that their skills are outstanding, and so they fear no challenge.
My pro-unification friends, what are you afraid of? Taiwanese are not stupid. If the idea of Taiwanese independence is such a terrible option, they will not select that option just because we acknowledge it. Someone who is confident of his beliefs does not deny others the right to voice their convictions, just as a martial-arts hero shows confidence in his own skills by allowing his enemy to choose whatever weapon he wants.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) statement that "Taiwanese independence is one of the options for Taiwan's future, but the KMT will not regard it as an option for the party" is an expression of confidence in his opposition to Taiwanese independence.
Only by expressing this confidence can unification proponents free themselves of their shackles and meet independence proponents in fair debate. This is a great leap forward for the unification discourse, and there's no reason to worry.
To gain recognition of one's own opinion in a democracy, one has to rely on persuasion, not on blocking other ideas. It is like a market -- we have the option to decide whether we want to sell apples or pears, but consumers have the option to decide what they want to buy. We can't tell them to buy apples just because that is what we are selling.
Opposing Taiwanese indepen-dence and championing Taiwanese independence are merely two options espoused by the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). A political party is not the people. It can provide different options for the people to choose from, but has no right to say that the people must choose unification or independence because that is that the party wants. No matter whether we espouse the cause of independence or unification, in a democratic society me must win public support by persuasion, not by blocking out opposing ideas.
Why has the unification discourse been weak in recent years? Because many proponents of unification only know how to demonize independence proponents and have failed to back up their opposition with well-founded arguments. Thus, those who advocate independence have been able to make an easy reply to such opposition, saying that "no political party has the right to deprive the Taiwanese of their choice."
When I see pan-blue politicians vexed and in panic over Ma's remark -- instead of seeing that it is beneficial to the anti-independence position -- I can only say that there are reasons for the pan-blues' repeated defeat by the DPP. In the past, some have dubbed me a unification die-hard. If I do not fear the inclusion of independence as an option for the nation's future, shouldn't others who champion unification be more confident in themselves?
C.V. Chen is a lawyer and former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well. A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?” If you were a Uighur, what would you say? What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.” Such a harsh response would
Double Ten Day, Oct. 10 every year, is an important day for Taiwan, as it marks the Republic of China’s (ROC) National Day. Major holidays are usually a time for celebration and commemorative activities, but among all the clamor and excitement, Double Ten reflects one essential fact: that Taiwan is still not a normalized society. As usual, there was a large parade in front of the Presidential Office Building, displaying to the world Taiwan’s social diversity and its soft and hard power, and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) gave an address, relaying her message to the nation and to the world, while the
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day address has attracted a great deal of analysis and many different interpretations. One core question is why Tsai chose this occasion to discuss Taiwan’s national status. What was her main motive and what effect did she intend to have? These are issues that clearly need further clarification. The section of Tsai’s speech that attracted the most attention internationally was, not surprisingly, the part where she laid out “four commitments” that she said should serve as common ground for all Taiwanese, regardless of political affiliation. The commitments were to liberal democracy and constitutional government; that the
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by