Years from now, we will be pondering the question, "Who lost Taiwan?" Why, in 2004, didn't the Taiwanese vote for the pan-greens, and why did Taiwan not want to beef up its defense, but instead sit and wait for Communist China to deteriorate?
Why did Taiwan not give itself a chance to stand up to Communist China, but allow it to hunt down Taiwan in the international arena and cross the Strait with psychological deception and military warfare?
Why did it not build strong defenses and watch China take the road to self-destruction as a result of the clash of ideologies between old imperialism and modern human freedom; a clash of justice and technological, cultural and humanitarian differences between bankrupt Chinese-style communism and democracy?
We will ask why Taiwan did not build itself up militarily and psychologically, and educate young people about their inalienable rights to self-determination, self-protection and an identity of their own choosing, backed up by modern military technology to see it through.
But, by then, it will all be too late.
The People's Republic of China, fueled by its desire to annex Taiwan, will have been able to put off discontent at home, riding on the euphoria of nationalism after the Olympic Games and with a new status as the menace of the East, holding South Korea and Japan by their throats [through manipulation] of their trade lifeline.
With their "friends" and strategic partners like North Korea, as well as hard-line Islamists, could Europe and America be far behind?
The answer to the question "Who lost Taiwan?" would be quite simple. Because the Taiwanese had the freedom to choose, despite all the deception and intimidation, it will have been the Taiwanese who lost Taiwan. And the free world who helped them.
With foresight like this, what should Taiwanese do differently, if they were given a second chance?
Ming-Chung Chen
Chicago
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS