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.
Michel Gourd
Quebec, Canada
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS