What a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
Wang Weiming ("Laughable and pathetic," April 30, page 8) charges that the pan-greens are making dangerous accusations, while failing to mention that since March 20 the pan-blues have indulged in much contemptible character assassination as well as repeated attempts to create Haiti-style civil unrest ("revolution," they call it).
The beauty of democracy is that citizens are free to question their leaders. However, in light of the post-election uproar, have we not seen affable pan-green politicians and supporters humbly accept a ballot recount and further in-vestigations into the attempted assassinations?
Where can you find another world leader who, after an attempt on his life, is assumed guilty and forced by his nation to "please explain why you were shot?"
Yet President Chen Shui-bian (
Can anyone deny that Chen's holding out of the olive branch has availed him little thus far? The pan-blues' bitterness at their defeat has marred their respect for the judicial system and raised questions about their judgment and morality. Are the rest of us also free to question the pan-blues' intentions and acerbic tone?
While there is always room for improvement, Chen included, let us look at both sides of the argument with greater objectivity. Upholding democratic principles means that however free we may be to question our leaders, we must also respect the courts' ability to honor our legal codes with due process. Failing this, we fail democracy.
Insinuating that leaders can bypass the laws and judicial processes is surely not conducive to the spirit of democracy. The pan-blues would do better to point their accusing fingers at those who harbor such dangerous and illegal notions.
Currently I see no indications of political turmoil or democracy going "backward," as some former tyrants continue to claim.
Respected international commentators and global leaders alike have lauded Taiwan's democracy as true and functioning, particularly in light of the capable handling of the pan-blues' post-March 20 enmity.
My fellow Taiwanese would certainly do better for our young democracy by placing more faith in our nation and its laws.
Jennifer Chen
Australia
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