Unsurprisingly, my letter on Quebec independence (Letter, March 16, page 8) drew fire from Canadians. In these few lines, I want to answer James Clost's (Letters, March 20, page 8) and Gilles Chartrand's (Letters, March 18, page 8) comments on my text.
I think they were examples of what Chen I-chung (陳宜中) ("Pragmatic path is the best solution," Feb. 24, page 8) was saying. Even an old democracy like Canada refuses to agree to Quebec's unilateral demands for separation. I don't agree with Clost's assertion that any responsible government would be expected to act like the Canadian government did in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum. After using all the democratic tools offered to the "no" side, it used undemocratic tricks to ensure victory.
A decade after the Quebec referendum, two recent books in French show how wicked its actions were. The first book, Robin Philpot's Le Referendum Vole ("The Stolen Referendum") shows how Canada stole the 1995 federalist victory. The Quebec referendum was conducted under the principle that the opposing camps should have equal means to defend their options during the referendum campaign.
Philpot found that by intervening in the 1995 referendum, Canadians outside Quebec violated the international right of people to self-determination. A wide array of techniques was used, like speeding the citizenship process for immigrants, getting out the vote of every Quebecer who'd recently left, massively subsidizing the Oct. 27 "love-in" rally in Montreal and many more.
A second book, by Robin Philpot and Normand Lester, Les Secrets d'Option Canada, looked deeper into the Option Canada case. This non-lucrative enterprise illegally spent millions of dollars on the referendum campaign's "no" side, bypassing Quebec's spending laws for the referendum.
The authors found documents revealing a will on the part of the conceivers of Option Canada and the federal government to break Quebec's referendum laws and to secretly inject money into a democratic political campaign.
The last development in this affair was on Jan. 13. The chief electoral officer of Quebec has announced the appointment of the Honorable Bernard Grenier, a retired Quebec Court judge, as the investigating commissioner in charge of examining certain allegations made in the book Les Secrets and the documents submitted by the authors.
I found Clost's comment that Quebec is free to secede from Canada, provided certain requirements are fulfilled, to be highly questionable.
About Chartrand's comment, I have to say that I am not that ignorant of relations between Taiwan and China. My text was not a klaxon call to shared revolution. Letters from Charles Hong (Letters, March 22, page 8) and Roger Lin (Letters, March 21, page 8) clearly show that Quebec and Taiwan don't have the same past. But domination structures have similarities through time and space.
There are so many ways to oppress people or nations that it is impossible to put them all in one book. Still, the dominant party always works to keep its edge and the underdog tries to gain on it.
The point I was trying to make goes directly in the direction of Chen's text. If a region that still is not independent wants to achieve independence, the best option is to obtain the approval of the mother country. It is obvious that neither Taiwan nor Quebec has that. The second-best option can be achieved through international mediation.
If the mother country breaks up and has no choice but to accept separation, it should be held accountable by other nations for its oppressive actions against the secessionist entity.
Neither China nor Canada is in this position right now, so the door to a relatively peaceful road to independence is closed.
Chen's proposition of promoting liberal democracy and social justice in China could also be good for Canada. It is so because, like Chen said, an old democracy like Canada refuses to agree to Quebec's unilateral demands for separation. It all boils down to humanism and justice. As long as some people think they have the right to oppress others, this kind of situation will continue.
From time to time a Gandhi will rise and free millions from their lot. Chen's demand for political parties and politicians to fulfil their moral responsibilities points in that direction.
Criticisms of corruption, a poorly managed bureaucracy and uninformed, unprincipled or unaccomplished policy in China are often met with harsh punishments. Many protesters in the “blank paper movement,” for example, have been disappeared by the authorities. Meanwhile, the WHO has asked China to provide data on its COVID-19 situation, with the Chinese government choosing to disseminate propaganda instead. The first amendment of the US Constitution, written in 1791, prohibits the US government from abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, or religion. More than 200 years later, China, the world’s second-largest economy, still lacks the freedoms of speech and the press,
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the pride of the nation, has recently become a villain to residents of Tainan’s Annan District (安南). In 2017, TSMC announced plans to build the world’s first 3-nanometer fab in Anding District (安定). While the project was once welcomed by residents of Tainan, it has since become a source of controversy. The new fab requires a huge amount of electricity to operate. To meet TSMC’s surging electricity demand, plans are under way to construct a 1.2 gigawatt gas power station near a residential area in Annan District. More than 10,000 Annan residents have signed a petition
As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constantly strives to rewrite the Taiwan narrative, it is important to regularly update and correct the stereotypes that the PRC tries to foist on Taiwan and the world. A primary stereotype is that Taiwan has always been a part of China and its corollary that Taiwan has been a part of China since time immemorial. Both are false. Taiwan has always been a part of the vast Austronesian empire, which stretched from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east and from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south. That
I first visited Taiwan in 1985, when I was deputed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to start a dialogue with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). I spent three days talking to officials, the end result being the signing of an agreement where the Republic of China (ROC) recognized the right to self-determination of Tibetans. According to official KMT records in Nanking, Tibet never paid taxes to the ROC government. In 1997, the Dalai Lama made his first ever visit to Taiwan on the invitation of then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). Lee took the bold step of opening Taiwan’s doors to