“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
That saying from a notorious propaganda chief seems to be what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is aiming for with its so-called “1992 consensus” — which has become a ubiquitous term among Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese officials alike.
Never mind the fact that former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 openly admitted fabricating the term in 2000 before the KMT handed power over to the Democratic Progressive Party, nor the fact that China has made it clear that the “1992 consensus” is just another way of describing its “one country, two systems” policy — which does not at all recognize that each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own interpretation of what “one China” means. The Ma administration has nonetheless stuck to this lie, as it continues to deceive the Taiwanese public and toe Beijing’s line.
Following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) warning earlier last month that there would be “earthshaking” consequences to cross-strait relations if the political basis of the “1992 consensus” is challenged, Ma yesterday reiterated the importance of the so-called consensus as a “foundation for peaceful cross-strait development” by further threatening his own people that cross-strait relations would descend into “chaos” if people go against it.
It is one thing for China to sell its interpretation of the “1992 consensus” to members of the international community, as it has made no secret of its ambition to annex Taiwan. However, it is another thing when a head of state like Ma, who was elected by his own people, resorts to such tactics and allows Beijing to take advantage of the people with nary a protest.
“I deeply believe that peace and prosperity are the future of the two sides [of the Taiwan Strait] ... and what most Taiwanese expect,” Ma said in a speech during a visit to the Mainland Affairs Council, which council officials said was timed to commemorate the first high-level cross-strait meeting 22 years ago in Singapore.
Indeed, no one objects to having peaceful cross-strait relations, but peace must not be built on Taiwan’s voluntary denigration of its own status and forsaking its dignity as a sovereign state.
If Ma genuinely cares for peaceful cross-strait development, the dignity of the Republic of China which he represents, as well as the well-being of Taiwanese, rather than hanging on to the spurious “1992 consensus” and pushing the nation toward Beijing’s “one China” framework, he should speak out against China’s “Anti-Secession Law” and urge Beijing to revoke it.
While the law, enacted in 2005, claims to promote peaceful unification, it provides a legal basis, from the Chinese perspective, to rein in Taiwanese independence and facilitate the nation’s annexation through the use of military force. It clearly stipulates that Beijing — in the event that “Taiwanese independence” forces act under any name or by any means to cause Taiwan’s secession from China — shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures “to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The motive and content of the law show nothing but malice and threats to peace on Beijing’s part.
It is downright pathetic that the Ma government believes in a consensus that does not really exist, all the while lacking the guts to stand up to Chinese aggression and bullying.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS