In a recent letter (Letters, Dec. 23, page 8), Milton Liao argued that the concept of Taiwanese identity was a groundless artifice of propaganda lacking in support, and he emphasized the strength of Chinese origin and identity, and its superiority to Taiwanese identity, as grounds for close identification with "mainland China."
In addition to the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary, I would like to point out a couple of fallacies in Liao's argument.
The first is the implicit assertion that culture in Taiwan is almost exclusively of Chinese origin.
Culture is not static. It is constantly changing and shifting over time, and the effects of the Japanese colonial era (followed by 60 years of de-facto independence) on culture in Taiwan, while sometimes subtle, are undeniable and non-trivial.
Case in point: an uncle of mine, a Malaysian-born Chinese who was educated in Taiwan, recently visited Japan for the first time.
A passionate, lifelong believer in a greater China, Chinese nationalism and unification, he surprised me when he stated that only after his visit did he begin to appreciate the effects of the Japanese colonial era on modern Taiwanese life.
He had realized that culturally, Taiwan and China were in fact very different places, and that unification would be be very painful for Taiwanese.
The second mistake, often made by supporters of unification, is that of tying national identity exclusively to culture and ethnicity, and again assuming on these grounds that being Taiwanese and being Chinese are exactly the same.
We often use the term "background" to describe one's ethnicity, because while its importance to identity is undeniable, so too are the ties to one's home -- by birth or choice -- where one puts down roots, breathes the air, derives nourishment and seeks companionship.
I offer the examples of the UK, France and Canada, where we can acknowledge our background while still calling ourselves British, French or Canadians.
To tie national identity with ethnicity is not only incorrect, it is also xenophobic and very dangerous.
Allegiance tied solely to ethnic, tribal, clan or religious identity is a throwback to a more primitive, less enlightened era, and should be cast off.
Presumably Liao is a US citizen, in which case I would hope that he acknowledges himself as American as well as Chinese.
If he does not, then may I humbly suggest a return to the "motherland"?
Eric Wu
Tokyo, Japan
Dreaming of US support
A referendum is an invaluable tool used by democracies worldwide to gauge and implement the will of the people on any issue confronting a country or state.
But the US has an inconsistent record in supporting and promoting democracy.
For example, the US has supported the recent referendum by the good people of Kosovo to vote on independence; allowed the good citizens of Puerto Rico to vote at least twice in two referendums on whether it wished to be independent from the US; and sent our troops at great cost to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and plant the seeds of freedom in the Muslim world.
Taiwan is a vibrant democratic country. In stark contrast to the People's Republic of China, the Taiwanese people have enjoyed free elections since the end of the Chiang dynasty two decades ago.
Although Taiwan has never belonged to China, this Communist regime has led the world to believe that it owns Taiwan.
After exporting SARS to Taiwan, China denied the World Health Organization's attempt to send health experts. More than 100 Taiwanese people died.
Taiwan's annual applications to world bodies like the WTO and the UN have been obstructed and denied by China.
This regime has deliberately isolated Taiwan from the international community.
Taiwanese are a peace-loving people; they abide by the rule of law. They participate and actively contribute to the causes of liberty and human rights. The referendum slated for March is a matter of survival for the Taiwanese people. They are threatened by missiles, and Ms Rice calls the referendum "provocative." But who poses the real threat here?
Are we not infuriated by discoveries that lead and asbestos-tainted products have been exported to the US by China?
Is this deliberate or coincidental?
Have big business interests in the US compromised the national interest and security in the US?
Shouldn't these questions be key issues for top government officials?
I don't believe my fellow Americans will agree with Rice in her denouncing Taiwanese people voting on joining the UN.
Her message is inconsistent with our national agenda and stated goals for the world we live in.
Tien C. Cheng
Libertyville, Illinois
The US should stop blaming Taiwan for its UN membership referendum or any tensions that it "unnecessarily raises," as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a press conference on Friday.
There is a possibility of triggering World War III by yielding to Chinese pressure and appeasing an aggressive state that now resembles the country that started World War II.
No one should forget the events that an aggressive Communist China is starting to mimic by passing an "Anti-Secession" Law that "legalizes" employment of "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" toward what it calls a small handful of Taiwan Independence secessionists.
Ironically, according to the Chinese, this "handful" has marched beyond the threshold of 2 million under the threat of more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan -- all in tandem with inappropriate and unnecessary pressure from senior US officials such as Rice.
Compared with Taiwan's population of 23 million, the number 2 million may not sound significant to US politicians who have been misled by the pro-China pan-blue camp in Taiwan.
All this kowtowing reminds me of the lead-up to World War I, when the British appeased Germany to the extent that it encouraged the Germans to proceed with naval development, eventually challenging them, the then naval superpower.
Doesn't this period of history resemble so well the Communist Chinese's all-out military build-up -- yet not limited to the navy? Do not US politicians today resemble those in the British government then?
The Western world's ignorance of the consequences of appeasing a militarily ambitious country amid the near-silence of neighboring countries is worrying.
What hope is there for the world if even the US -- the leader of free nations -- can no longer safeguard world peace and yields to pressure from a hegemonic military power by shackling Taiwan -- a tiny paradigm of democracy in Asia that the US has helped to protect for more than half a century?
Please don't let US politicians sell the soul of their country.
Please don't allow them to continue blaming Taiwan, which has been struggling for decades in her epic course of championing freedom and independence from a China that has slaughtered thousands of its own citizens and mocks the basic principle of freedom of speech.
What's wrong with Taiwan's sublime cause being likened to the US' independence from the British in the 18th century? What is wrong with a referendum that invites Taiwanese to vote for an ideal that has been sponsored by more than 2 million citizens?
What is wrong with the ideal of freedom of speech carried by a referendum consistent with the First Amendment of the US Constitution?
Why would such a great referendum have to suffer criticism from US politicians and officials?
What is wrong with these people? Are they leading us to another wave of appeasement that cost us millions of lives in previous world wars?
Can we afford not to learn from history and allow this to happen again?
Are we willing to let Taiwan's fragile freedom be extinguished?
Communist China has deployed more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and is increasing that number. It is that country that deserves censure.
If a superpower like US can not tolerate Soviet deployment of even one missile in Cuba, how can it ask tiny Taiwan to tolerate 1,000 missiles? Stop blaming Taiwan!
Carl Chang
Diamond Bar, California
Which whaling fleet?
We here in Australia deplore your nation for sending its whaling fleet to our southern waters to butcher a thousand whales. Your government, who represent your people, say to the world that they kill whales under the pretense of scientific research! We all know this is a lie.
We know your government has no regard for the sacredness of life, and especially of whales.
No regard for the protection of these magnificent mammals, who are intelligent and harmless creature.
We love whales and appreciate them. Why must they live in fear for their lives?
Do you leave whales any quality of life?
No.
You send great factory ships to process their meat for human consumption.
This makes us Australians feel sick to our stomachs!
We believe you hold to ancient traditions, which do not allow you to know growth and better understanding of all life here on Earth.
You are held back in the past, and lack knowledge of a better way of living.
One that allows peace on Earth and goodwill for all creatures.
Whales, and not fish, to be eaten!
Indeed, it is a crime against God to eat them!
Stop killing/murdering innocent life forms such as whales.
Jacqueline Petrucci
Craigieburn, Australia
Editor's note: We should remind Ms. Petrucci that Taiwan has not been Japanese territory for 62 years. If overfishing is a concern, Taiwan's role in the South Pacific tuna industry might be more worth an activist's scrutiny.";
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS