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
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
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,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS