The Democratic Action Alliance was one of the principle organizers of Saturday's "peace rally" held to protest the government's US$18.25 billion arms procurement deal with the US. The purchase will strengthen Taiwan's military defenses with eight diesel-electric submarines, six PAC-3 anti-missile systems and 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The interest group is borrowing vocal opposition to the procurement plan from academics to advance its agenda.
Let's debunk the actions and words of the Democratic Action Alliance and its supporters, shall we?
First, promoting the protest as a "peace rally" is misleading. As a concerned citizen, I think the proponents of the arms purchase are pro-peace because they understand the heightened national security threat that comes not only from Taiwan's aggressive neighbor, but also from a weak and outdated military. China has always been a threat, and will only become a greater threat in the future.
The Chen administration has, on several occasions, offered an olive branch to Beijing, but only got insults and disappointment in return. And if there can be no peaceful dialogue between Taipei and Beijing, then one has to assume aggression is forthcoming. A sound defense is therefore critical to protect the nation.
Second, National Taiwan University's professor Huang Kuang-kuo (
Third, the alliance whines that the arms deal violates the "spirit of democracy." Democracy is defined as "government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives," and Taiwan's government (as well as most other world democracies) is clearly the latter. Our elected representatives in the Legislature voice our concerns regarding bills and statues. That's what you do when you cast the ballot. Perhaps the alliance can elaborate on how it defines democracy?
Fourth, opponents always argue about arms procurement at the expense of social welfare. A strong military can only be sustained if there's a strong economy and vice versa, as we have witnessed during the Cold War; when the US outlasted the Soviet Union economically, later bringing about the collapse of the Communist government. Where will you work or where will your family get medical care when a Chinese invasion completely destroys Taiwan? We should aim to grow a strong army, navy, and air force, then we will deal with the rest, as we are a freedom-loving and hard-working people.
People like me are labeled "hawks" or "war mongers," but the threat of an invasion of Taiwan is very real. Beijing continues to actively deploy coastal missiles and modernize its military, and any reasonable person can understand why. Domestic social issues are crucial indeed, but they mean nothing if future generations cannot live freely.
Eugene Liu
Atlanta
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