Some members of the Chinese National People's Congress have reportedly proposed naming March 14 "Protect Taiwan Day" as a way to commemorate the passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law a year ago. It would be most ironic should Beijing adopt this preposterous proposal.
The irony, of course, lies in the diametrically opposite view and interpretation of the Anti-Secession Law by Taiwanese people.
It cannot be disputed that if Taiwan were ever to officially declare independence from China (despite the fact that many people rightfully argue that Taiwan has no need to do so since it has already attained statehood status), it would require the consent of Taiwanese, which would probably be expressed through a referendum. The state of democratic development in Taiwan has reached the point where it would be hard to imagine any elected government or president unilaterally declaring independence or secession and continuing to rule thereafter without public support.
Against whom, exactly, is the Anti-Secession Law supposed to protect Taiwanese? Themselves? Is it supposed to keep them from exercising their right to self-determination? If so, then March 14 should not be called "Protect Taiwan Day" but "Oppress Taiwan Day." It would be a day to scorn.
On the other hand, could Taiwan ever unify with China without Taiwanese consent? Sadly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. The passage of the Anti-Secession Law is a clear declaration of Beijing's violent intentions and preparedness to act on them when the time comes. Other facts point to Beijing's undisputed ambition -- from missiles targeting Taiwan to the refusal to rule out an invasion and repeated warnings by the US on the military threat posed by China.
One shouldn't rule out the possibility that some politicians may trick voters into electing them to office before making a pact with Beijing to accept unification without the endorsement of the popular will. The support of the people would no longer be needed from that point, because once China gained control of Taiwan, its army would rush to crush any dissent.
This year is not only the first anniversary of the passage of the Anti-Secession Law, but also the 10th anniversary of the 1996 missile crisis. Ten years ago, on the eve of Taiwan's first popular presidential election, Beijing conducted military exercises in the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to intimidate voters and influence the election's outcome. The threat against Taiwan was so real and imminent that Washington had to dispatch the USS Independence to keep the peace in the area.
Ten years ago, the Taiwanese -- prompted by a sense of nationalism and pride in their democratic accomplishments -- were more unified than ever in the face of Beijing's threats. This was clearly shown in the high voter turnout and the landslide victory of former president Lee Teng-hui (
But what has happened since then? Taiwan has seemingly become more polarized. Such internal rivalry and hostility are much more dangerous than any Chinese missile.
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