The unpredictability of former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Shih Ming-teh's (
Two articles on Sept. 22 in the Los Angeles Times -- "Daily protests snap at Taiwan leader's heels" and "China accused of reneging on rights pledge" -- discuss Shih's undertaking and the future of Taiwan if Shih gets his way.
A Beijing-based Taiwan analyst was quoted in the first article as saying: "This situation makes us [China] confident there won't be real independence activities at this stage. They're too busy with their own problems."
That can only imply that Shih's event has so far served Beijing's causes. The comment, however, has hardly put a dent in the speculation that Beijing has a hand in the anti-Chen campaign.
While the report lacks direct proof, meaningful inferences can still be drawn based on reports that Shih's inner circle boasts the participation of bigwigs from Taiwan-based media outlets with links to Beijing.
Circumstantial evidence of Beijing's involvement abound, including the unmistakable symbolism of the sit-in's starting day -- Sept. 9 -- coinciding with the anniversary of the death of former Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong (
As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Furthermore, looking past the article's critical tone, one couldn't help but be surprised by what Chen has managed to do for Taiwan's democracy and consequently for the nation's security -- the headwind from both Beijing and Washington notwithstanding.
Chen was faulted for wanting "the electorate to vote on whether Taiwan should seek to join the United Nations using the name Taiwan rather than the official Republic of China," for engineering "passage of a law legalizing referendums" and for, earlier this year, dissolving "a symbolic unification council."
On top of these "criticisms," the article could also have added Chen's push to adopt a new constitution "custom-made for Taiwan," alluding to the fact that the nation's current Constitution lacks relevance to Taiwan and that this must be remedied lest it threaten the functioning or even the survival of the nation's democracy.
These might all seem "too little and too late" for the pan-green camp, which feels perpetually frustrated by Chen's propensity to let down the independence-leaning end of the spectrum once elections are over.
But these meager accomplishments are precisely what has stoked the deep-blues personal hatred of him.
What has been intentionally overlooked is the fact that Chen's principle duties -- with safeguarding national sovereignty at the top of the list -- are ignored as a yardstick for his performance.
The subject of graft, especially at the scale that has been alleged against Chen, should therefore be dismissed as a ruse, deployed at least partially to divert the public's attention from focusing on the flawed morality of presidential hopeful and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
But, reportedly, some members of the KMT have taken this deception seriously and conducted a signature drive to initiate an "anti-graft" referendum, intended apparently as another tool to recall Chen.
Coming out of left field, that event is nevertheless heartening in two respects. First, it has signified that the KMT might have finally overcome its phobia of national referendums.
Second, referendum topics of far more significance -- such as the perennial question of "transition justice" and the nation's territorial definition -- might find a more receptive audience in the legislature.
If this ushers in an era of direct democracy in Taiwan, there might just exist a silver lining in the current political turmoil. It would represent a victory for the Taiwanese people in general and a great setback to those who instigated this wave of unrest while harboring ulterior motives against Taiwan.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS