While traveling in Australia last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) met with Taiwanese and Chinese students at the University of Sydney. When asked to present his views on China's democratization, Ma said that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) must indeed face the issue of how to pursue democracy in China, but that progress is possible, just as the CCP used to refer to the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989 as the "1989 counter-revolutionary riots" but now calls it the "1989 political disturbances."
The fact is that since taking over the KMT chairmanship, Ma has always put forth this example as his standard answer when asked about democracy in China. As a participant in the protests on Tiananmen Square in 1989, I have been following Beijing's views on this issue over a long period of time, and I cannot reach the same conclusions as Ma. I would thus like to offer my views on the topic.
First, I would like to point out that Ma's argument contains a fundamental factual mistake: the replacement of "counter-revolutionary riots" with "political disturbances" is nothing new. The tone in official Chinese documents changed as early as 1990. If that change of tone implies a shift in political stance, does that mean that Ma really believes that China changed its position as early as 1990? Over the course of improving his understanding of Chinese policy, I think Ma has made a serious mistake. This kind of misinformation, however, could lead to serious errors of judgement, and I hope that Ma will correct his opinion based on the facts.
The second thing I want to point out is a fact that Ma has never touched on. During the 17 years since 1989, no Chinese leader, from former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
Finally, Ma has been involved in politics his whole life, and he should understand that when you want to know what a politician thinks, the main point is to watch his actions rather than listen to what he says. As for the CCP's attitude toward the Tiananmen Square protests, the reasonable and gentle demands of the "Tiananmen Mothers" led by Ding Zilin (
Ding's only son was shot to death by soldiers in Tiananmen Square, but she is still not allowed to mourn her son in public. Every year on the day of his death, all she and the families of other victims can do is burn some incense in the privacy of their homes. I can only guess at the despair and helplessness she would feel if she were to hear Ma -- who all along has been supporting the democratization of China -- talk about how the CCP gradually has been changing its view of the June Fourth Movement.
Over the past 17 years, Ma has consistently attended annual memorial services to commemorate the June Fourth Movement, and he has repeatedly stressed that a reversal of the Tiananmen Square verdict is a precondition for unification talks.
Myself and other participants in the protests as well as people concerned about the democratization of China, both overseas and in China, have been moved by this and admire Ma for his support.
It is precisely because of this that I don't want him to be led by misinformation regarding the June Fourth Movement and come to flawed conclusions. As June 4 is not far off, I venture to offer the above discussion in the hope that Ma will give it further consideration.
Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement, a visiting scholar at Harvard University and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
RSS