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
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
RSS