The Scottish-American historian Niall Ferguson pointed out in his 2011 work, Civilization: The West and the Rest, that in the 1400s, as the Forbidden City was being constructed in Ming China, the Ottomans were besieging Constantinople. This was compared to England and the rest of Europe, which were being ravaged by the Black Death, lack of public hygiene and engagement in near-interminable warfare. It is hard to believe that after only a few centuries, western Europe would completely turn the tables and surpass the Byzantines, the Ottomans and the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Ferguson used the fashionable computer term “killer apps” to describe six social developments that appeared in the Western world: science, medicine, competition, consumption, work and property. These social developments would not come forth and blossom for quite a long period in other societies.
Five of these developments shall momentarily be overlooked to focus on one development.
So how did this historian interpret “the right to property”? Ferguson declared his position from the outset by citing an enduring quote from English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704): “Freedom is … a Liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another… The great and chief end therefore, of Men’s uniting into Commonwealths … is the preservation of their Property.” This is the very theoretical essence of Locke’s proposition of the social contract.
I can attempt to interpret Locke’s slightly enigmatic philosophical words more accessibly. The notion of the social contract emphasizes that people have natural rights, which of course include property rights, but in seeking government guarantees, people establish a civil society along with their government, which provides a system that guarantees private property. A people, though, must undergo mutual agreement and integrate with a governed society. Within this process, the people agree to abide by mutual laws and principles, and to accept corresponding duties and obligations, enabling the assurance of oneself and others to not be infringed upon or to be harmed.
The protection of property rights is of course an important concept, and likewise the rights to life and liberty are no less important. Thus, a government and its people establish a social contract wherein the government’s sole purpose of existence is to guarantee its people’s rights to property, liberty and life. A governing body’s power is derived from the consent of the governed, and it thus represents a government composed of those over whom it governs. When such a government infringes upon or contravenes the consent of the governed and is incapable of protecting the rights to property, life and liberty, the people are within their rights to dissolve their government or change it.
Ferguson also cited former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s definition of a civilization: “The central principle of Civilization is the subordination of the ruling authority to the settled customs of the people and to their will as expressed through the Constitution.”
When compared to the millennia-old Chinese civilization, the Shih-Ching or Book of Odes, is a collection of 305 poems, dating from 1000 to 600 BC, on a wide variety of topics and subjects, reflecting labor, romance, war, conscription, suppression, resistance, customs, marriages, rites of worship, banqueting and so forth. Yet what has remained unshakeable within Chinese culture can be reduced to a microcosmic conceptualization of the very phrase, “All under heaven is the domain of the monarch. Everywhere the waters of the Four Seas touch is the domain of the monarch and his ministers.” The connotations embedded within this famed phrase might differ in interpretation depending on the reader, but several thousand years of historical reality only proves the calamity caused by the monopoly of monarchy.
Ferguson’s interpretation of the guarantee of private property is born out of the liberal democracies of the West, and he pointedly states that other countries, including China, have not developed a culture that guarantees the right to liberty and freedom as they lack a system of private property rights. His point is so incisive to the matter of the ills and points of contention of long-standing Chinese culture that it quite honestly leaves me speechless.
The concept underlying, “The monarch demands the death of the minister, and the minister has no choice but to submit” was observed as late as 1911 with the overthrow of the Qing Empire, but has such a solidified concept not been challenged since?
As late as the eruption of the May Fourth Movement on May 4, 1919, the dean of Peking University’s College of Humanities Chen Duxiu (陳獨秀) put forth his famous, “Mr Democracy and Mr Science” advocacy in which he postulated: “Only two masters are capable of saving China from the darkened stains of politics, morality, academia, and knowledge.” Chen was one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as one of its early leaders. The “Mr. Democracy” and “Mr. Science” that he clamored for are two of the cornerstones underlying Ferguson’s six “killer apps” of the West. Chen would turn in his grave if he knew his advocacy had been shelved, with communist China taking the opposite path.
Churchill once philosophically quipped that “no one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Taiwan currently possesses a universally affirmed liberal democratic system; private individuals and enterprises might all develop their business without the fear of government interference. If the long road of Taiwan’s development is considered, the system that it currently possesses was by no means a gift bestowed upon us from up on high. It is worth every Taiwanese person’s stalwart protection.
Yet just as earnestly as Churchill reminds us, Taiwan’s democratic system is not without its flaws and imperfections. Democracy cannot feed us. What would any property rights enjoyed by private individuals or enterprises become should Taiwan ever lose its democratic system, regardless of the whims of a ruling party?
It would be difficult to say whether people could guarantee and continue to enjoy such rights as they currently possess. In comparison, in China, it can be seen how freedom of speech and personal liberties are being curtailed, the possible forced harvesting of human organs, and even limitless exploitation of lives under a system with no true legal process; and even the mandatory placement of party cadres in executive positions in private enterprises; state-owned enterprises forcibly driving market conditions at the expense of private enterprises, as well as the forced “donation” of private enterprise wealth under the guise of the often-touted slogan of “mutual prosperity” and so forth.
For example, to avoid being purged, billionaires like Alibaba founder Jack Ma (馬雲), had to donate 32.3 billion yuan (US$4.5 billion); Xu Jiayin (許家印), the CEO of Evergrande Group, 30.4 billion yuan; and Tencent chairman Ma Huateng (馬化騰), 26 billion yuan. These are not the only examples of such a spine-chilling atmosphere wherein everyone is “vying to avoid calamity.” Perhaps out of political considerations, such a strong-arm tactic has yet to be exacted upon Taiwanese business executives in China. The hallowed guarantee to private property rights enjoyed by Taiwanese entrepreneurs might serve as a firebreak against the enticement and entrapment of China’s so-called “Taiwan-friendly measures,” or against the delusions of some of Taiwan’s less scrupulous politicians.
China is seeking a significantly more dominant position on the global stage, but has failed to demonstrate the responsibility which, as Churchill put it, is the price of greatness. It is undeniable that China has an atrocious human rights record in its treatment of Tibetans and Uighurs, as well as its heavy-handedness in confounding and blocking international investigations of that record.
In 2018, the US was incensed by the farcical attitudes of the UN upon China’s attaining a seat on the UN Human Rights Council to the point of withdrawing from the council. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian (趙立堅) took to angrily attempting to rebuke the US response, asserting: “The Chinese government attaches great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights… We have successfully forged our own path of development with regards to human rights with Chinese characteristics.” Zhao’s claims still echo within the international community. However, with the reality of former Chinese minister of foreign affairs Qin Gang (秦剛) “disappearing” for a whole month, this “path of development with regards to human rights with Chinese characteristics” is something which Taiwanese must avoid at all costs.
These infamous examples of harm and infringement visited upon Chinese citizens are massive violations of human rights known throughout the world. It is difficult to imagine that not a few people in Taiwan are deaf, dumb and blind to these facts, without expecting the slightest bit of change in China, and deliberately make light of the risks Taiwan faces should it cooperate with China. This would undoubtedly be the imminent collapse of the foundation of Taiwan’s liberal democracy, would it not? How could our people not remain vigilant and wary?
Yen Ching-chang is a former minister of finance and Taiwan’s first ambassador to the WTO.
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
RSS