The recent controversies over Premier Yu Shyi-kun's talk last Saturday about Taiwan striking Shanghai with missiles in the event of an attack against Taiwan by China is a classical case of words taken out of context by the media. It is truly puzzling how those who depict Yu's comment as being provocative and hostile can overlook the fact that Yu was only talking about a scenario in which Taiwan was forced to react to a missile attack by China and fend off further such attacks.
It is imperative to point out that Yu made the statement in the face of a rally by about 1,000 people organized by the pan-blue opposition against the government's arms procurements from the US. The statement was meant to help explain the need for the arms purchases in an easy-to-understand manner. Yu said that in order to maintain the security of Taiwan, if China is capable of destroying Taiwan, Taiwan also needs to maintain that kind of capability against China, so that "in the event [China] hits [Taiwan] with 100 missiles, then [Taiwan] should at least be able to strike back with 50 missiles; if [China] hits Taipei and Kaohsiung, then [Taiwan] should be able to strike Shanghai in return."
Yu was simply talking about maintaining a degree of counterstrike ability in order to deter one's enemy from launching an attack, rather than Taiwan taking the initiative and attacking Shanghai for no reason. Yu's point was that maintaining that kind of capability can help avert war all together, and in order to maintain that ability, Taiwan needs to make the arms purchases. Yu's comments are also consistent with the existing national defense strategy of Taiwan, which is "effective prevention [of war], and steady self-defense."
While some people may not like Yu's bluntness, he pointed out something that the general public in China, which continues to overwhelmingly support unification, should keep in mind: in the event that their government tries to impose unification through the use of military might, the Chinese people might be the one paying a hefty price in the lives of their sons and daughters in the event of a cross-strait conflict. For decades, the Chinese government has been brainwashing its people about the importance of "unifying" with Taiwan -- even through military adventurism -- as part of its campaign to harness the blind nationalism of the masses and maintain the security of the corrupt and bloodthirsty authoritarian regime in Beijing. If the Chinese people can be taught to see things from an alternative perspective, then perhaps there might be a change in China's policy toward Taiwan one day.
Another question that needs to be faced is this: If a counterattack is out of question, then aside from keeping one's fingers crossed praying that US aid would arrive in time, how can Taiwan respond to a missile attack by the Chinese? Perhaps what the pan-blues want is to surrender immediately, and then organize a reception banquet? Otherwise, it is hard to understand their opposition to the special arms budget.
Ironically, on Wednesday, the spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office Li Weiyi (
If China did not cast the dark shadow of military conquest over Taiwan; and if China did not have hundreds of missile targeting Taiwan; there would be no need for the arms purchase, and Yu would not have to defend this need in such a manner.
As the biggest threat to not only cross-strait peace, but also regional peace, it is laughable to hear Beijing accuse others other of being provocative and hostile.
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