We need to cut former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
His upbringing has fashioned him in such a way that an awakening is -- and will always be -- beyond his reach. We humble Taiwanese daily reflect on how gullible we were to believe that dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
However, Ma has been and will always be spared "enlightenment." His deep-pan-blue background, his ethnicity, his colonialist attitude, his Harvard education and, most of all, his "movie star" image, are beyond reproach.
How can we ask him to turn against his father's dying wish and renounce the goal of eventual "reunification"?
How can we expect him to twist his tongue and speak proficient Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) or think like us when there is not a drop of Aboriginal blood in him? (Of course, this needs to be qualified, for I have heard that former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
How can we expect Ma to allow the budget and the arms procurement bill to cruise through the legislature when he browbeats us with his colonialist superiority, which defines him as the conqueror and us as the conquered?
His deep-pan-blue forbears financed his Harvard law education with the money stolen from poor Taiwanese.
Naturally, they enjoyed his loyalty as he acted as a student spy and raised his persecuting voice against Taiwanese political activists at home and abroad. This loyalty is undoubtedly ingrained in his being and has become part of his DNA -- which is why he will continue to frustrate the interests of Taiwanese.
Furthermore, he is a pretty chap and can proudly say that he has amassed a not inconsequential following of termagants who invariably shout for joy as he jogs by them in his shorts. Some of these are his most ardent defenders in the legislature, willing to go to the most ridiculous extremes to hen-peck government officials during hearings with the most unfathomable nonsense. With friends like these, how can one help but be puffed up?
In view of all this, when we question his "core values," when we are amazed by his fawning comments on the economic achievements of the Singaporean regime (which overlook its authoritarianism), when we are puzzled by his facial expression after his disastrous meeting with Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
Quite to the contrary, he will continue to smirk at us and to despise us -- he simply can't help it.
Yang Chunhui
Salt Lake City, Utah
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS