People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's (
Their behavior was no different in substance -- they both identified with the concepts of "one China" and "one Chinese people."
Neither dared to bring up the name "Republic of China," let alone stress that the Republic of China is a sovereign country.
This pair of political puppets predictably made Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Both the Hu-Lien communique and the Hu-Soong communique were ambiguous on Taiwan's sovereignty, but in fact are barely disguised plots to promote unification and prepare for surrender.
Lien and Soong have run in presidential elections twice, and were rejected on both occasions. During those campaigns, Lien and Soong repeatedly stated that the future of Taiwan should be decided by its 23 million people. They even got down on their hands and knees to kiss the ground in an attempt to repudiate allegations they were selling out the nation.
Now, in order to save themselves from political marginalization, Lien and Soong have dashed to Hu for help, shouting "one China" and "one Chinese people" along the way. How is such behavior different from selling out Taiwan?
The future of Taiwan should be decided by its citizens. So long as a majority of people agree, of course Taiwanese independence remains an option.
But Lien and Soong denied Taiwanese their right to choose independence by dismissing it as an option altogether. They are therefore genuine enemies of democracy and hold the people in contempt.
Since 2000, helped by an opposition majority in the legislature, Lien and Soong have repeatedly jeopardized the sovereignty and security of the nation.
They have behaved as if the public were not entitled to good governance simply because they failed in their bids to be elected president.
The defeat of Lien and Soong in last year's election demonstrated that the public's stance on sovereignty and security was not swayed by these efforts at cultivating mayhem over the past four years.
This means that as long as the president of this country holds firm to a pro-Taiwan stance, he can win the support of the majority.
This is not surprising. Taiwan is our home. People will not tolerate Lien and Soong dividing Taiwan and handing it over on a silver platter.
Unfortunately, recent events suggest that President Chen Shui-bian (
The combination of Lien's and Soong's agenda of havoc, Chinese threats from without and other international factors have placed a lot of pressure on Chen.
However, as a leader, he must do what is right as well as live up to his own campaign promises and stay faithful to his supporters.
This fundamental principle of democracy seems to have been thoroughly forgotten after last year's legislative elections.
When Soong and Chen issued a 10-point consensus, through which the two embraced the "Republic of China," Chen cast aside his campaign platform on name rectification and a new constitution. The only excuse offered was that they could not be accomplished.
The political change that has come over Chen has opened a Pandora's box, opening the door for Lien and Soong to do what they have always wanted to do but dare not admit -- team up with the Chinese communist regime in a gambit to revive their political fortunes. When the Chen-Soong consensus was announced, Soong immediately declared that Taiwanese independence was not an option. And there was Chen, sitting right next to him but saying nothing, as if tacitly supporting Soong's words.
Even more puzzling is this -- when China invited Soong to visit, Chen was expecting Soong to serve as a kind of envoy.
He probably entertained the illusion that Lien and Soong would open doors for him in China.
So it was a little strange for Chen to repudiate Soong after the latter declared in Beijing that Taiwanese independence was no option.
Other than his endorsement of the 10-point consensus, what could have earned Soong's invitation to China?
After saying that Taiwanese independence was not an option, Soong proposed to Hu that the "wisdom" of the "Chinese" on both sides of the Taiwan Strait had to be combined so that the "Chinese" could handle the misunderstandings and problems left over from the past on their own.
In other words, the Taiwanese had no substantial right to speak on cross-strait differences. They were merely at the mercy of the "Chinese" on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
If this is the case, then Taiwan will take only one path in the future: Chinese unification, or Chinese engulfment, in other words.
This is why the six-point consensus between Soong and Hu accepted the "one China" principle and opposed any campaign on name rectification and a new constitution.
Soong even seemed to take pride in the slogan "two sides of the Strait, one China" and "`one China' with each side of the Taiwan Strait free to interpret its meaning."
If Taiwan accepts "one China," then it is all over. So Soong has not achieved anything at all. Given such treacherous behavior, it would be ridiculous for Chen to continue portraying Soong as some kind of envoy.
Some pro-unification media outlets have pointed out that Soong's speech in National Tsing Hua University mentioned "Taiwan" and "Taiwan consciousness" a number of times.
So what? Does using these terms make treachery less treacherous?
Lien and Soong have stressed that "Taiwan consciousness" is not the same as "Taiwanese independence."
Soong, for example, said in China that Taiwan consciousness is a sentimental identification with the land and people of Taiwan that has built up over a long period of time, while Taiwanese independence is an attempt to sever ties between Taiwan and China.
Then is it not naked political manipulation by Beijing to spurn this identification and coerce Taiwan into its arms?
Soong has now returned from his homecoming tour. And with his and Lien's helping hands, China can now accelerate its efforts to divide this nation.
This is therefore a major test for Taiwan as it works toward becoming a normal country.
The ease with which Hu mixed with Lien and Soong suggests that the three have far more in common with each other than any of them have with the people of this nation.
It is important that Taiwanese recognize this so that it can pass this test.
If Chen still cares about Taiwanese sovereignty and security, then he should no longer employ the "Republic of China" -- a name that even Lien could not dare to utter in front of his communist masters -- as a tool for co-existing with the current pan-blue-camp leadership. Lien and Soong have not only failed to find a way forward for this nation, they have in fact dug a hole for Taiwan to fall into.
Will the efforts of Lien and Soong to sell out Taiwan work? Will China's plot to force unification through an economic Trojan horse be successful? And will the national identification with Taiwan be ripped apart?
Chen's decision to either cooperate with the communists or stand up against "China fever" is critical.
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