Ma’s absurd surrender?
While every person in Taiwan with common sense always knew that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) ultimate goal is to surrender and unite with China, he has made it official himself in his interview with the Mexican newspaper El Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26.
He was quoted as saying: “The relationship is a special one, but that relationship is not between two countries …While it is unlikely that double recognition of both sides of the Taiwan Strait can be obtained from any foreign country, we must maintain a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Beijing” (“‘State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says,” Sept. 4, page 1).
This is official surrender. But is it surrender or simply meeting the expectations of his people in the so-called “mainland region”?
Of course, the Presidential Office will continue trying to convince the public that this is not surrender.
What else should we call it? A “diplomatic truce”?
Alex Raymond
Niaosong,
Kaohsiung County
While reading Ma’s comments as recorded in El Sol de Mexico, I could not help pondering the days when I would read such “absurdist” authors and playwrights as Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco.
My profound love and concern for Taiwan — especially its students whom I used to teach — leads me to experience a sadness that borders on grief.
Ma gets it right when he says that neither the People’s Republic of China nor the Republic of China allows for the existence of another country or state within its territory. This is by definition the essence of sovereignty.
There presently exist two self-governing and sovereign states on either side of the Taiwan Strait.
Where Ma wanders into absurdist “la-la land” is when he refers to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Perhaps mine may be considered a naive question posed by an ignorant foreigner, but I will ask it anyway: Does the “1992 consensus” exist in any written form? Was the “1992 consensus” ever recorded or transcribed?
If so, who were the signatories to this document? Did they have the authority vested in them to sign their names on such a document?
The term “1992 consensus” has been bandied about since its birth (or is still birth a more accurate term?). It seems that much could be at stake in regard to this “consensus.” It seems that certain politicians would feign to permit public policy be dictated by this “consensus.”
Certain politicians seem to be willing to allow this “consensus” to set their course and hence that of the nation.
So one would do well to ascertain the legitimacy of the “1992 consensus.”
A thought experiment that I find interesting is to question whether said consensus has any validity in a Taiwanese court. What is the legal basis of this “consensus”?
Perhaps a person with a law degree from Harvard or Yale could answer this question. Has this consensus been vetted or reviewed by any panel of justices?
Most importantly, has anyone consulted the 23 million people living in Taiwan for their opinion on the matter?
Or is the “1992 consensus” at best — at the very best — an empty slogan and empty words with no basis in fact or reality? Is it merely an absurd illusion, or even a delusion?
How can two people or parties maintain two “interpretations” while talking about one thing? In my mind, to do this adds absurdity to a paradox that is already mired in inanity and senselessness.
I seem to remember reading once about a group of philosophers in ancient China. I believe that they attached great importance to the names of things.
These philosophers called for the “rectification of names.” They understood that if any progress were to be made, people had to be sure that they were designating the same thing when they used a certain word.
Karl Marx said that events in history first appear as a tragedy before reappearing as farce. Designating Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” would be farcical were it not a question of the tragic humiliation of some 23 million people.
Out of all the countries represented at the Beijing Olympics, only Taiwan — free and democratic Taiwan — was made to endure such an outrageous humiliation.
The world should be ashamed of itself.
Michael Scanlon
Kaohsiung County
Invest in health, not foul air
I would like to point out that an air-fueled scooter was developed some time ago in the UK as a project in Bath, where a local sandwich shop wanted to expand its delivery service to company and office workers without causing pollution (“Researchers build green scooter that runs on air,” Sept. 4, page 2).
A program on this has been aired worldwide by the Discovery Channel. There is also now an air-powered car based on the same principle that was shown at various car shows in Europe.
I think it would be fantastic if one of the Taiwanese motorscooter companies could be the first to bring the vehicles to the market, because I really question why so many people use their scooter to travel less than 500m, knowing full well the damage they are causing to the environment.
How many scooters do you see leaving a trail of smoke behind them or puffing away at traffic lights? I also wonder how much it costs the government in healthcare for chest and throat treatment for people suffering from air pollution.
If the government invested in this kind of product, it would save money in the long term and create a much healthier society.
Steve Fenton
Taichung
What bipartisan unity?
Mike Shen (Letters, Sept. 3, page 8) adopts a self-righteous attitude in attacking the legitimate concerns raised in Lee Min-yung’s article “Can Ma’s KMT secure Taiwan’s hereafter?” (Sept. 2, page 8).
However, despite his call for bipartisan unity, Shen adopts the smear tactic that he accuses Lee of using, going so far as demanding Lee change his “Chinese” surname and discard “Chinese ideas” such as “eating with chopsticks or drinking tea.”
Shen also quickly defends Taiwan’s ailing economy, arguing that President Ma Ying-jeou is not a “magician” but “capable, educated and well spoken.”
I believe that with a little sense and a review of Shen’s argument, one could point out his misguided, irrational and partisan attitude, which further creates division among the people of Taiwan.
Shen’s demand that the author relinquish his surname and ditch his way of life or face being called a hypocrite is beyond rational thought.
There are billions of Chinese and they have a multitude of nationalities and citizenships. Would a Chinese-Thai, a Chinese-Canadian, or a Chinese-Singaporean have to drop his or her surname to become a truly Thai, Canadian or Singaporean citizen?
Should Irish-Americans also abandon their Irish traditions just to differentiate themselves from Irish nationals?
Surely Shen, who lives in such a multicultural nation as the US, should recognize the inherent weakness of his argument. Should one not be able to embrace a political and national identity without getting into a conflict with ethnic heritage?
Shen’s assumption that those who use chopsticks and drink tea identify with “Chinese ideas’’ does not warrant a serious response.
But I would like to make a point, nonetheless. It is ethnocentric to automatically assume that one who drinks tea or uses chopsticks identifies with China, culturally or politically. Should all tea drinkers, from India to the UK, kowtow and acknowledge themselves as “exhibiting Chinese cultural mannerisms”? Are Japanese hypocritical for using chopsticks while not being ethnically, politically or culturally Chinese?
Should it be assumed that I exhibit Chinese mannerisms simply because I used the word “kowtow” just now?
Shen’s contention that those identifying with Taiwan politically should not associate themselves with Chinese culture or adopt Chinese mannerisms is simplistic and misunderstands pan-green-camp ideology.
Our “well-spoken” President Ma has already succeeded in making ambiguous and unclear statements with his recent claim that Taiwan and China have a “special relationship.”
Does this mean that the Republic of China (ROC) is part of the People’s Republic of China? Surely Ma is not so naive as to assume that the Chinese will agree with him that their China is a part of the ROC.
As for Shen’s confidence in Ma’s ability to improve the economy, Ma has already admitted that he will not be able to fulfill his “6-3-3” campaign pledge, thus further damaging investor confidence in Taiwan.
When Ma inherited the government, Taiwan’s economy was in a robust state, with the last three quarters seeing more than 6 percent growth. But since he entered office, economic growth has slowed, with a growth rate of about 3 percent predicted for the remaining two quarters of the year.
Perhaps with a little research and critical thinking, and with less empty rhetoric, Shen’s letter would have been more convincing.
The people and politicians of Taiwan should work in unity for the betterment of the nation. It is unfortunate that Shen and people like him claim the moral high ground while attacking others as hypocrites.
This is an approach that would further fuel division in a country facing a delicate political situation.
Roger Lee Huang
Taipei
Full marks for Sarah Palin
I am impressed: I was taken with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech.
She was confident and communicative and she connected very well with the audience, which had very little knowledge of who she was.
After she accepted the nomination and thanked the audience she turned around and hugged her children. She embraced her daughter with Down syndrome and smiled. It was so natural: What I saw was unconditional mother’s love.
She knew she was going to have a disabled child, but she went ahead and delivered her. She is pro-life, we are told, so she practices what she preaches.
As a young, female, Republican politician she had the courage to fight and rile the Republican machine. Against all odds she won the Republican nomination for governor and beat the Democratic Party nominee, becoming the first female governor of Alaska at the age of 42.
Mrs Palin has made a career of changing the status quo, which, like she said, is in sharp contrast to some politicians who use change to get ahead in their careers.
Tien C. Cheng
Libertyville, Illinois
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS