Commenting on the Sunflower movement in May, Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) said: “Democracy alone does not provide food to eat.”
However, democracy is the only power that the poor have to protect themselves against the rich and powerful. It is because of democracy that politicians are obliged to pay attention to the lives of ordinary people and to address the issue of the distribution of wealth within a nation.
It is easy for the rich to build connections, entice cooperation, obtain high posts and enjoy “the good life.” Of course, there are rich people with a conscience and a vocation, but they are the exception: Most rich people, it seems, do not believe in the “one person, one vote” concept. And they do not care about democracy.
That being so, if you are not a rich person, you should not listen to the majority of rich and powerful, those who do not care about democracy. The man and woman on the street can only achieve reasonable wealth distribution through the exercise of their democratic rights. From this perspective, it is not a fanciful assertion to say that democracy can indeed provide food to eat.
The authoritarian Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime is the biggest threat to Taiwan’s democracy. It is trying to use business to push for “unification,” and if it succeeds, the party will deprive Taiwan of democracy.
Many of the rich and powerful people who do not care about democracy seek only their own interests, despite the risk of Taiwan being controlled by Beijing if it becomes overdependent on the Chinese market. They are rashly locking Taiwan into the “one China” market.
When elections come around, these elites try to intimidate the general public with vague threats about what will happen to the economy if voters fail to comply, while trying to tempt the public with promises of economic growth. At the same time, rich and powerful cliques try to manipulate media outlets to influence election results, helping parties and candidates that Beijing favors to win.
As a result, more politicians try to curry favor with a hegemonic China and pay less attention to the public’s needs. As the significance of each vote is devalued, the democratic system exists in name only, while people who are entitled to their democratic rights become the biggest victims.
Thus, if you are not a rich person, you should really care about democracy. You must not be shortsighted or look for instant gains and must oppose parties and politicians who are helping the CCP gain control of Taiwan, to make sure that the nation’s democracy remains vibrant and does not fade away.
This is something that many celebrities, wealthy people and media outlets will not tell you.
However, if you are a rich person, although you do not have to strive for reasonable wealth distribution through democracy, you still have to face all the certainties and uncertainties that life throws at you: aging, illness and yes, eventually death. It is advisable, then, to be charitable and cultivate your spiritual life.
Safeguarding Taiwan’s democracy to protect the general public’s democratic rights is the biggest, most important thing that you could do and will earn you merit.
You must never help parties and politicians who are unconcerned about the CCP’s control of Taiwan to do anything to the detriment of the nation’s democracy.
Otherwise, you would be doing evil, turning yourselves into Beijing’s servants, while the public can merely hope for mercy to be shown.
Chang Shyue-yih is a professor in the School of Medicine at National Yang-Ming University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS