To begin with, I want to make it clear that I am a proponent of unification -- I support unification idealistically at the current stage and think that Taiwan and China should unify when conditions are ripe.
Although I am a strong proponent of unification and believe that Taiwanese will benefit more from unification than from independence, I must say that no one has the right to assert that Taiwanese independence is not an option. It is unbelievable that some Taiwanese politicians, after two decades of democracy in Taiwan, are still unable to grasp such a simple and clear idea.
When reading Chinese novels of chivalry, we often come across scenes in which the hero allows his or her opponent to choose the weapons they want to employ in a fight. These heroes know that their skills are outstanding, and so they fear no challenge.
My pro-unification friends, what are you afraid of? Taiwanese are not stupid. If the idea of Taiwanese independence is such a terrible option, they will not select that option just because we acknowledge it. Someone who is confident of his beliefs does not deny others the right to voice their convictions, just as a martial-arts hero shows confidence in his own skills by allowing his enemy to choose whatever weapon he wants.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) statement that "Taiwanese independence is one of the options for Taiwan's future, but the KMT will not regard it as an option for the party" is an expression of confidence in his opposition to Taiwanese independence.
Only by expressing this confidence can unification proponents free themselves of their shackles and meet independence proponents in fair debate. This is a great leap forward for the unification discourse, and there's no reason to worry.
To gain recognition of one's own opinion in a democracy, one has to rely on persuasion, not on blocking other ideas. It is like a market -- we have the option to decide whether we want to sell apples or pears, but consumers have the option to decide what they want to buy. We can't tell them to buy apples just because that is what we are selling.
Opposing Taiwanese indepen-dence and championing Taiwanese independence are merely two options espoused by the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). A political party is not the people. It can provide different options for the people to choose from, but has no right to say that the people must choose unification or independence because that is that the party wants. No matter whether we espouse the cause of independence or unification, in a democratic society me must win public support by persuasion, not by blocking out opposing ideas.
Why has the unification discourse been weak in recent years? Because many proponents of unification only know how to demonize independence proponents and have failed to back up their opposition with well-founded arguments. Thus, those who advocate independence have been able to make an easy reply to such opposition, saying that "no political party has the right to deprive the Taiwanese of their choice."
When I see pan-blue politicians vexed and in panic over Ma's remark -- instead of seeing that it is beneficial to the anti-independence position -- I can only say that there are reasons for the pan-blues' repeated defeat by the DPP. In the past, some have dubbed me a unification die-hard. If I do not fear the inclusion of independence as an option for the nation's future, shouldn't others who champion unification be more confident in themselves?
C.V. Chen is a lawyer and former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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