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
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS