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
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