While traveling in Australia last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) met with Taiwanese and Chinese students at the University of Sydney. When asked to present his views on China's democratization, Ma said that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) must indeed face the issue of how to pursue democracy in China, but that progress is possible, just as the CCP used to refer to the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989 as the "1989 counter-revolutionary riots" but now calls it the "1989 political disturbances."
The fact is that since taking over the KMT chairmanship, Ma has always put forth this example as his standard answer when asked about democracy in China. As a participant in the protests on Tiananmen Square in 1989, I have been following Beijing's views on this issue over a long period of time, and I cannot reach the same conclusions as Ma. I would thus like to offer my views on the topic.
First, I would like to point out that Ma's argument contains a fundamental factual mistake: the replacement of "counter-revolutionary riots" with "political disturbances" is nothing new. The tone in official Chinese documents changed as early as 1990. If that change of tone implies a shift in political stance, does that mean that Ma really believes that China changed its position as early as 1990? Over the course of improving his understanding of Chinese policy, I think Ma has made a serious mistake. This kind of misinformation, however, could lead to serious errors of judgement, and I hope that Ma will correct his opinion based on the facts.
The second thing I want to point out is a fact that Ma has never touched on. During the 17 years since 1989, no Chinese leader, from former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
Finally, Ma has been involved in politics his whole life, and he should understand that when you want to know what a politician thinks, the main point is to watch his actions rather than listen to what he says. As for the CCP's attitude toward the Tiananmen Square protests, the reasonable and gentle demands of the "Tiananmen Mothers" led by Ding Zilin (
Ding's only son was shot to death by soldiers in Tiananmen Square, but she is still not allowed to mourn her son in public. Every year on the day of his death, all she and the families of other victims can do is burn some incense in the privacy of their homes. I can only guess at the despair and helplessness she would feel if she were to hear Ma -- who all along has been supporting the democratization of China -- talk about how the CCP gradually has been changing its view of the June Fourth Movement.
Over the past 17 years, Ma has consistently attended annual memorial services to commemorate the June Fourth Movement, and he has repeatedly stressed that a reversal of the Tiananmen Square verdict is a precondition for unification talks.
Myself and other participants in the protests as well as people concerned about the democratization of China, both overseas and in China, have been moved by this and admire Ma for his support.
It is precisely because of this that I don't want him to be led by misinformation regarding the June Fourth Movement and come to flawed conclusions. As June 4 is not far off, I venture to offer the above discussion in the hope that Ma will give it further consideration.
Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement, a visiting scholar at Harvard University and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
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
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
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
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS