Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country.
While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US — like many Mainlander migrants of his generation, he retains a political obsession with a great China.
Despite studying in the US, Ma fails to understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship, and can hardly be a staunch defender of Taiwan’s democracy. Moreover, his lack of apprehension of the tragic history of China — a vicious cycle of a unified country ruled by tyrants and a chaotic society mired by infighting — made him relate more to the Chinese ruling class, instead of the common people. He could neither be a staunch defender of human rights, nor a freedom fighter for Chinese people.
Many academics in the US whose parents migrated with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from China to Taiwan share similar political traits. They tend to visit China to connect with the ruling class, enjoy VIP treatment as patriots of China and help report to the outside world the accomplishments of the CCP, despite the human rights contraventions, the mafia-style government administration, and the wicked handling of citizens’ lives and livelihoods.
Even when they visited China in the 1970s at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, they saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.
The sad truth is that the voices of Chinese students are suppressed. Even recreational activities in huge groups are prohibited. A few months ago, students from Zhengzhou University in Henan Province started holding so-called “Night Rides to Kaifeng,” with students from other universities also participating part. At its peak, more than 200,000 college students rode shared bicycles together. The fleet stretched for dozens of kilometers from Zhengzhou, forming a spectacular scene.
This sparked concern among authorities, who were afraid they might be precursors of protests such as the “blank paper” movement — which opposed the Chinese government’s COVID-19 policies — or worse, and clamped down on activities outside campus.
When a government does not hold the principle of justice for all, it easily treats its citizens as potential enemies. In fact, many killings of government officials have occurred at an alarming rate lately.
Goldman Sachs has estimated that China’s local government debt total more than 94 trillion yuan (US$12.9 trillion), or more than half the size of the economy. Recent reports indicated that more than 10 million college students cannot find a job and have experienced homelessness.
Democracy and freedom are the only path forward to revive the Chinese economy.
Former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future.”
Where there is no future for the youth, there is no future for the country.
Chinese students’ longing for freedom of the press and liberty to form opposition parties cannot be overstated. Meanwhile, Taiwanese students want to be free from China’s constant harassment and military threats. Peace, prosperity and progress are what Taiwanese students strive for.
Trust is the currency of international cooperation. Until China removes all its missile arsenal aimed at Taiwan, Ma’s marching on an agenda that would bring the same fate of Chinese students to Taiwanese students would only be totally rejected.
It was well said that: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” For the sake of the youth — Chinese, Taiwanese or otherwise — Ma should be a staunch fighter for democracy and freedom, and switch to the right side of history.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS