On Nov. 4, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Alex Tsai (
"The reasoning." he said, "is that Lee is the convener of the National Organization for the Support of A-bian and has placed himself in the line of fire by criticizing Lien [KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰)] and Soong [People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜)]. Looking at the general atmosphere of the campaign, Lee seems to be Chen's vice president and partner. There is no longer any need for the blue camp to be polite towards Lee, who has now allied himself with Chen. When he does something worth criticizing, he will be criticized. I will be tough."
Tsai talks with considerable gusto and style, almost like the vagrant street quacks I saw as a child. But even if being tough means having great style and character, simply spouting ran-dom criticisms like a Don Quixote charging at a windmill will only expose Tsai's shortcomings. His ugliness will overwhelm everything else and make him look childish and ridiculous.
Indeed, the ugliness jumps straight out of Tsai's mouth. He has said: "Chen and Lee's frequent attacks on Lien and Soong using the issues of ethnicity and independence are in fact only attempts at stealing the Minnan [Hokkien-speaking] vote. But since people have already seen Lee's true face, plus the fact that Lien Chan is a Minnan person through and through, the blue camp can only score points by meeting Lee head-on and criticizing him." After reading this, I almost lost my lunch.
Our brave and bellicose Mr. Tsai only cares for criticism for its own sake and never spends any time trying to understand the meaning behind what he criticizes. Starting with the Feb. 28 Incident in 1947, the Taiwan independence and nation-building movement has had a history of more than 50 years. The ignorant, narrow-minded Tsai has belittled the demands of this movement by labeling it as a means of stealing votes. Even worse, he has conflated the independence issue with the issue of ethnicity, in yet another vicious and hurtful remark.
The independence issue is not an ethnic issue. If it were, then why are not Tsai, KMT Legislator Lee Chuan-chiao (李全教), KMT whip Lee Chia-chin (李嘉進), KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (林豐正), deputy chief of the KMT's cultural and communication department Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) and PFP Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) born-and-bred Taiwanese every one of them -- independence activists? In reality there is no likelihood of these people acknowledging Taiwan to be their country.
On the other hand, many so-called "mainlanders" (they really ought to be called "new resi-dents") have joined the ranks of proponents of Taiwan's independence and nation-building.
As early as 1971, for example, Taiwan democracy activist Lei Chen (雷震), originally from Zhejiang Province, advocated that the national title be changed to "Democratic Chinese Taiwan" and said that "founding a new country on Taiwan is the natural way of things and a glorious undertaking."
Other examples are the late Liao Chung-shan (廖中山), originally from Henan province, who in 1992 joined almost 100 so-called "mainlanders" to form the Association of Mainlanders Advocating Taiwanese Independence, as well as the late National Taiwan University professor Chang Chung-tung (張忠棟), originally from the city of Wuhan, who also participated in the nation-building movement and advocated the changing of the national title to "Republic of Taiwan."
These days, professors Chen Shih-meng (陳獅孟) and Shieh Jhy-wey (謝志偉), authors Chin Heng-wei (金恆煒) and Tseng Hsin-i (曾心儀) and other so-called mainlanders clearly recognize Taiwan as their country. They are all proponents of Taiwan independence. Are they all running around inciting ethnic conflict?
Even more commendable, Ruan Ming (阮銘) has in recent years abandoned Communist China to join our free Taiwan to become a new Taiwanese. Authors from the Chinese diaspora such as Paul Lin (林保華) and Cao Chang-ching (曹長青) support Taiwan's independence and nation-building. Stubborn attempts at turning Taiwan's independence into an ethnic issue stems either from ignorance or from ill intent.
I would ask Tsai that he let himself go and criticize the following professors, who have all written books on the theory of Taiwan's independence and nation-building -- Peng Ming-min (彭明敏), Ng Chiao-tong (黃昭堂), Chen Lung-chih (陳隆志), Hsu Shih-kai (許世楷), Lin Shan-tien (林山田), Hsu Ching-hsiung (許慶雄), Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒) and Chang Tsan-hung (張燦鍙). Which book, what utterance by any of these people incites ethnic conflict? Alex Tsai, please, assert yourself. Let us all know.
Thirty-nine years ago, Peng Ming-min advocated "one China and one Taiwan" in his A Declaration of Formosan Self-salvation. He also stressed "uniting the power of 12 million people [the population at that time] -- regardless of which province they come from -- to do their best to work together, build a new nation and establish a new government. To write a new constitution, guarantee basic human rights, forge a government that is effective and responsible before the parliament and implement true democracy. To rejoin the United Nations as part of the free world."
By stressing "regardless of which province they come from," Peng's declaration clearly broke the chains imposed by the concept of provincial belonging. Was he also inciting ethnic conflict?
Unfortunately, such calls for disregarding ethnicity in founding a new nation angered Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his government, to which Tsai still pays his allegiance, and so Peng and many others were jailed. Does the violence committed by that government not concern Tsai?
Another issue to be examined is writing a new constitution. Many intellectuals have already tried their hand at this. I can recall that Lin I-hsiung (林義雄), Hsu Shih-kai, Ng, and Lee Hsien-jung (李憲榮) have written different versions of a draft constitution for a Republic of Taiwan. In August 1991, the People's Constitutional Conference passed "A Draft Constitution for Taiwan," and in June 1994, the Second Taiwanese People's Constitutional Conference passed "A Draft Constitution for the Republic of Taiwan."
The fact that so many draft constitutions have been produced contradicts Lien's smear that "changing the national title and writing a constitution are things which are always bandied about when election time nears."
Could we ask Tsai to please gather up some courage and point out which article, in which one of these constitutional drafts, incites ethnic conflict? Every draft Taiwanese constitution I have read stresses equality and mutual respect between ethnic groups.
There will be none of the ethnic segregation which the "Chinese" Nationalist Party government created during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s through housing war veterans in their own communities, or through the careful suppression of local languages, or the near-monopoly mainlanders enjoyed in holding important positions at different levels of government (local police chiefs, principals of junior high schools and so on). Even high school exams applied different standards to mainlanders and Taiwanese.
So if we want to talk about ethnic discrimination, how can we trump the activities of the "Chinese" Nationalist Party to which Tsai swears loyalty?
Let's take one last look at the little lie that Tsai likes to tell us. He says that Chen and Lee's "attacks on Lien and Soong using the issues of independence or ethnicity are in fact only attempts at stealing Minnan votes."
Tsai, bearing not one shred of identification with Taiwan, is always going on and on about what "Minnan" is. This is rather strange. In the area currently under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China, only Kinmen and Matsu are part of the area that can be considered to be "Minnan," that is, south of the river Min in Fujian Province.
So when Tsai talks about stealing Minnan votes, is it because he is being stupid, or does he think others are stupid?
Even more laughable, he says that "Lien Chan is a Minnan person through and through." Lien in fact was born in Xian, China and later came to live in Taiwan. He did not grow up in southern Fujian Province, yet he is said to be a Minnan person. Strange indeed.
According to Tsai, wouldn't that make former US president Ronald Reagan actually Irish? Or former Singapore president Lee Kuan-yew (李光耀) Cantonese? Or the late Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos Fujianese? With such wit, it's not at all surprising that Tsai has no inkling of the history and significance of Taiwan's independence movement.
If Lien wants to avoid becoming a laughing stock, I urge him to hire a spokesman who has not only a smooth, sharp and mean mouth, but also a precise, insightful and logical mind.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a member of the Association of Taiwan Professors and the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS