Beginning at 2pm on Aug. 17, the TV news kept on broadcasting news of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and his wife, Lien Fang-yu (連方瑀) as they saw their daughter, Lien Yung-hsin (連詠心), off to her studies in the US. Frankly speaking, this is really troubling and also very surprising.
It is troubling because why would it concern the public that Lien's daughter is leaving the country? Wherein lies its newsworthiness? Is it necessary to broadcast the story over and over again?
It was surprising to see both the departing one and those seeing her off actually crying. Lien Yung-hsin was only going to the US to study, she did not leave never to come back, nor is she dying, joining the army or going to war. What was there to cry about?
Today's world is but a small place, and an overseas student can come and go several times over a year, particularly postgraduate research students. So what was there to cry about?
In the 1960s and 1970s, studying abroad was without a doubt a big thing for a family. At the time, Taiwan as a whole was like a big prison. Under the surveillance of the Chiangs, the people were no different from prisoners.
Gaining admission into a school didn't necessarily mean that one would be able to leave. Even if one managed to leave, family members would not necessarily be able to leave the country to go visit, not only due to economic reasons, but also because they wouldn't necessarily be able to get passports.
Many people felt free as birds once they got on the aircraft, and vowed never to return. Whether on the dock or at the airport, therefore, it was not very strange to see both the departing ones and those seeing them off crying.
Today, studying abroad is a common triviality, so why are the Liens and their daughter crying at the airport? Lien Fang-yu was even escorting her daughter to the US.
The only reason is that the Liens are a world unto themselves, completely unrelated to Taiwan's democratic progress and historic development. Lien Chan was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His daughter will, of course, be even better off and you could even say that she was born with a gold spoon in her mouth.
The official career of Lien Chen-tung (連震東), Lien Chan's father, can of course not be compared to that of his son. Lien Chen-tung never reached any further than the ministerial level, where he amassed the huge family fortune.
Lien Chan went from minister to premier to vice president and his wealth does not compare unfavorably to and, in fact, even surpasses that of his father.
Lien Yung-hsin is therefore sure to be even more spoiled than Lien Chan. The result is this rare behavior of one of the richest families in modern Taiwanese history.
We can use PFP Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) definition of "one country on each side" -- "the poor on one side, and the rich on the other" -- to describe the Lien family's crying together.
Soong, who owns at least five houses in the US, can of course modestly count himself a citizen of the "country of the rich."
Lien Chan's wealth is known by all and sundry, and he is definitely a citizen of the "country of the rich."
We can only imagine Lien Yung-hsin's spoiled upbringing. The ancients had a saying: "The child of a wealthy man will not stand below a high wall," not to mention travel far.
The Liens' crying tells us a lot.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS