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
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
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
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
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