The point of entering government and politics is to establish a political domain. Achieving the goal of political office involves more than just courting votes — one must follow mainstream public opinion, which means altering one’s political positions when necessary.
However, political movements are different. They have fixed political positions and rarely align entirely with mainstream public opinion. This is what makes political movements essential.
The Republic of China (ROC) that occupied Taiwan after World War II was a foreign autocratic regime. Under this regime, Taiwanese were politically discriminated against because of where they were born. This gave rise to the democratization movement.
However, confronting a foreign power gave rise to a different movement — the Taiwanese independence movement.
However, the fact that both of these movements — Taiwanese independence and Taiwanese civil rights — were promoted by the same constituency, gave rise to the mistaken belief that they are one and the same.
The democratization movement aimed for citizens to become the masters of their destiny and form their government through a democratic process.
The Taiwanese independence movement hoped to expel the foreign presence of the ROC government.
Both of these are challenging tasks. Writer and vocal critic of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Henry Liu (劉宜良) was assassinated in a house fire in the US in 1984. As a result, his family could no longer carry on the movement.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) then brought Taiwan from a dictatorship to a democracy.
In the 1990s, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) began participating in the ROC government system, forming the first DPP government in 2000.
The party transformed from a political movement into an organization seeking to become a party of government, doing so by upholding the ROC and falling in line with public opinion.
The Taiwanese independence movement remains a political movement, but its goal has shifted from expelling the ROC to advocating for constitutional reform and renaming the country.
The DPP and the Taiwanese independence movement have taken different paths. As both sides have gone their separate ways, no one can label the DPP as being pro-independence.
However, some members of the Taiwanese independence movement have overly tenacious personalities with a talent for finding resources, similar to cockroaches.
They constantly fly the banner of Taiwanese independence and latch onto the DPP, making it difficult for outsiders to differentiate between the two. As a result, the DPP has been stained by the Taiwanese independence movement, leading the Chinese Communist Party to accuse the ROC and the DPP of being pro-independence.
Those pro-independence cockroaches have tainted Taiwan’s political environment.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS