Just as there is only one UK in the world, there is only one China in the world, but the two countries are very different in terms of systems, organization and respect for basic human rights.
The upcoming referendum on Scotland’s independence has highlighted how valuable it is that people in a democracy have the right to make their own free choices and to decide whether or not they are willing to unite with someone else.
Scotland has long been a part of Great Britain, but there is now a push to separate it from the UK and once again become an independent country, and last year, the government passed the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill to set the rules for the referendum.
The two sides are now making every effort to gain support in the hope of winning the referendum scheduled for Sept. 18.
The UK government should be praised for its confidence in allowing the Scottish people to decide, without worrying that they might leave the nest for good. Scotland is also upholding the lofty principle of allowing local residents to decide: Anyone born in Scotland but who lives elsewhere is not allowed to vote, while anyone born outside of Scotland but now residing there is allowed to vote.
Since the Scottish people are free to choose independence in this civilized manner, the losing side cannot complain and such a union or separation is likely to be long-lasting and harmonious.
China has proclaimed that it is on the rise and it is establishing its Confucius Institutes across the world.
In the 1970s, Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) criticized both former Chinese vice premier Lin Biao (林彪) and Confucius, causing former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to launch a “cultural renaissance” campaign in Taiwan.
At the moment, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is trying to monopolize Confucius on China’s behalf, and Beijing even demanded that the European Association for Chinese Studies (EACS) tear out the pages related to the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange in its brochure at the EACS’ 20th conference in Portugal last month.
It is said that Confucius attached great importance to a “benevolent rule” that upholds righteousness and morality, but from Mao to Xi, China’s promotion of “one China” and its Confucius Institutes reflects a “hegemonic rule.” They are simply trying pass off their tricks as virtue.
The fact is that “one China” is not really a voluntary union formed by different peoples. Instead, it is formed by force and oppression.
Internally, the Chinese government is oppressing Tibet, Xinjiang and even Hong Kong to prevent them from declaring independence.
Externally, it claims that the future of Taiwan should be decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese people, who have nothing to do with Taiwan.
“One China” refers to the People’s Republic of China, but it does not care about its people and is not a republic. If we portray the UK and China as two birdcages, then the door of the first birdcage is open and birds can come and go freely, while the door of the second birdcage is closed and all the birds are locked up inside.
Surprisingly, Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) praised the policy of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” in May, claiming that the policy could please China and put Taiwan at ease by putting disputes aside.
His remarks are scarier than Ghost Month.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS