Many people were worried that the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally would worsen ethnic confrontation. However, the rally's mood is better described as having been joyful rather than hateful. But the rally can hardly be seen as one ethnic group's provocation of other groups. If there was any kind of threat, it was directed at the pan-blue camp by demonstrating the pan-green camp's ability to mobilize its supporters.
One group dedicated to the advancement of ethnic equality recognized the self-control demonstrated by both camps in the rally. Its spokesperson even called upon the two camps to co-host a rally next year. Unfortunately, neither camp has responded.
The rally was good for the pan-green's election campaign. Some people have questioned the pan-green's motive in organizing the rally. Their concerns are legitimate, and will make political parties act more prudently. A society needs people like them, who challenge political figures and political groups on behalf of society. After all, power is like a flood, and mismanagement of it will harm people.
But other than from a political perspective, how can we interpret the rally? Was it a result of mobilization? Was it a demonstration of hatred against China? Or a show of admiration for President Chen Shui-bian (
In view of the variety of participants and mood of the event, it does not seem to be support for a certain political party that pushed millions to take to the streets; neither was it hatred against China or other ethnic groups.
Although the event was aimed at China, the confidence and desire for self-determination shown in the rally were not manifestations of blind hostility toward China. Many people who took to the streets that day have family or friends working in China or own businesses connected to the Chinese economy. Even the stocks owned by some of the participants may depend quite heavily on the performance of the Chinese economy. However, their common sense told them that Taiwan's future is inseparable from China's development. Their wish to be treated with justice and dignity is a sensible appeal.
The rally participants are not fanatics for Taiwan's indepen-dence. They do not wish to ratchet up tensions and create conflicts in cross-strait relations, but rather they hope to serve as a force for maintaining peace.
Not only are the pan-blue and pan-green camps aware of this, but Beijing knows it as well. Zhang Nianchi (章念馳), chief advisor to the chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, recently pointed out that China has long neglected the influence of localization, democratization and diversification of Taiwanese society after the lifting of martial law. He said that Beijing has only focused on the homogeniety of the "one country" aspect of the "one country, two systems" policy, and has overlooked the differences allowed for under "two systems."
Zhang obviously noticed that the "one-China policy" has lost support in Taiwan. But he also pointed out that "as long as the `one-China' principle is safeguarded in the international community, Taiwan will never get its independence." He believed that as China is developing peacefully, the Taiwan issue needs to be handled similarly.
Zhang's point is reasonable and objective, despite its overtones of pan-Chinese national-ism. This is the primary difference between his desire for peace and the desires of the rally participants, who are primarily concerned about the nation's future. Yet what can be found from both of them is a foundation of reason and an aspiration for peace, economic development and cooperation.
Such sentiments can serve as the foundation upon which both sides communicate. There will definitely be conflict during the process, but the process does not entail a zero-sum game of winner and loser.
Although many Taiwanese can understand China's desire for peaceful economic development, unfortunately not many Chinese can objectively consider Taiwan's aspirations for peaceful autonomy. If more Chinese politicians could be like Zhang and think in such a sensible way, then more Chinese will be able to sympathize and understand Taiwan's pursuit for a peaceful autonomy.
Only then can the two societies build cross-strait peace and safeguard each other hand-in-hand.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Jennie Shih
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
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 —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS