Peace across the Strait
Stop your independence referendums and create peace is Steve Tsang’s (曾銳生) simplistic recipe for peace between Taiwan and China as published in this paper (“Now is the time to forge consensus,” June 20, page 8). According to Tsang’s standpoint, Taiwan will obtain peace by abandoning the fundamental of any democracy to hold referendums on “independence.”
He leaves the impression that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) should seek to create a “consensus in Taiwan” on this repressive idea, disregarding all serious studies showing that Taiwanese will refuse to surrender to such a proposal.
In addition, he ignores that Ma’s China-friendly policies seem to have contributed to his low popularity.
Tsang’s proposal resembles a Chinese proposal from 1982, known as “one country, two systems.” The starting point for this proposal was a message to Taiwan on Jan. 1, 1979, from China’s National People’s Congress.
This was further expanded on in September 1981 by a nine-point proposal, which offered Taiwan autonomy and the right to retain its own social system and military.
This offer, however, hasn’t found support among Taiwanese. Since 1993, 68 percent to 80 percent of Taiwanese have rejected it and recently more than 80 percent have said no to the “one country, two systems” proposal.
It is daunting that Tsang denegrates the 72 percent of Taiwanese who want independence by labeling them aggressive and pointing out that China does not wish to see the DPP’s “aggressively pro-independence leaders return to power.” China uses such labels for opponents of their claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. Ma only avoids being labeled as aggressive by saying what China wants to hear.
The main problem in the conflict is China. It is Beijing that makes unfounded claims to Taiwan despite the fact that Taiwan was only a province of the Qing dynasty for 10 years, from 1885 to 1895. It is China that needs to realize its indoctrinated nationalism is the source of continued tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
Democracy has a hard time when people such as Tsang consider its elimination a solution to the conflict between Taiwan and China. It is a naive illusion to have confidence in the survival of Taiwan’s democracy if it is a part of China.
DaFydd Fell has a much more progressive proposal and suggests a consensus-seeking conference where taiwanese discuss the future (“How to achieve political consensus,” June 28, page 8). A lasting peace between Taiwan and China will only come when the world listens to Taiwanese and releases them from China’s grip.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman of Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen
Bringing soccer to Taiwan
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa will be remembered as the event that propelled the world’s favorite game into the consciousness of Taiwanese. The 2006 tournament in Germany passed with barely a mention in the media, but this year’s event has received extensive newspaper and TV coverage and engaged the public at a previously unimaginable level. We can expect to see interest in soccer continue to hold firm when the European domestic leagues get underway later in the year.
But amid all this excitement, one question still needs to be asked: When will Taiwan (competing as Chinese Taipei) ever be able to field a team that is even remotely competitive in the World Cup and the AFC Asian Cup qualifiers? Chinese Taipei has never managed to qualify for either competition despite participating since the 1970s, with one particular low point coming when Palestine recorded an 8-0 win in qualifiers for the 2006 World Cup.
The source of the problem can be traced to the sorry state of the domestic league administered by the Chinese Taipei Football Association (CTFA). Since the league was reformatted as the Intercity League last year, it has drawn most of its players from the nation’s sports universities with only a handful of poorly paid semi-professional players. Attendance is low and the playing standards even lower. Despite the recent wave of soccer fever, the fact remains that Taiwan does not have enough public interest (and therefore commercial backing) or playing talent to support a domestic league capable of producing players of international caliber.
Now is the time to give serious consideration to the idea of entering a Taiwanese team in the Chinese Super League. While the Super League is plagued with problems of its own, not least rampant corruption and match-fixing scandals, in terms of soccer ability it is still light years ahead of anything we have in Taiwan. Most, if not all, the players are professional with a number of journeyman players from overseas adding to the talent pool. Attendance averages over 13,000, way beyond CTFA’s stated (and highly improbable) goal of 3,000 per game for Intercity League fixtures.
If Taiwan were to enter a team, it is likely that the majority of the players would also represent the Chinese Taipei national team. This is doubly advantageous as the players would benefit from playing together regularly and resources from the club and national teams, such as training facilities and coaching staff, could be pooled.
Most importantly, the establishment of a professional Taiwanese soccer club will give hope to the thousands of young soccer players that there is a chance of making a living from the game. As things stand, it’s understandable that promising players drop out of the game when the rewards for persisting are so paltry.
The inevitable political questions will be raised, but there is a precedent for soccer teams from one national federation playing in the domestic league of another territory. In the UK, Welsh teams compete in the English league without forfeiting the right of Wales to play as an international team. The Football Association of Wales runs its own Welsh Football League, and I would envisage CTFA continuing to run a domestic Taiwan league. The Toronto Raptors have competed in the NBA without damaging the status of the Canadian national basketball team.
The time has come to look afresh at the way soccer is run in Taiwan, and we must discount no option, no matter how unpalatable it may first appear.
JOHN PHILLIPS
Taipei
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS