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 — like many Mainlander migrants of his generation, he retains a political obsession with a great China.
Despite studying in the US, Ma fails to understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship, and can hardly be a staunch defender of Taiwan’s democracy. Moreover, his lack of apprehension of the tragic history of China — a vicious cycle of a unified country ruled by tyrants and a chaotic society mired by infighting — made him relate more to the Chinese ruling class, instead of the common people. He could neither be a staunch defender of human rights, nor a freedom fighter for Chinese people.
Many academics in the US whose parents migrated with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from China to Taiwan share similar political traits. They tend to visit China to connect with the ruling class, enjoy VIP treatment as patriots of China and help report to the outside world the accomplishments of the CCP, despite the human rights contraventions, the mafia-style government administration, and the wicked handling of citizens’ lives and livelihoods.
Even when they visited China in the 1970s at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, they saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.
The sad truth is that the voices of Chinese students are suppressed. Even recreational activities in huge groups are prohibited. A few months ago, students from Zhengzhou University in Henan Province started holding so-called “Night Rides to Kaifeng,” with students from other universities also participating part. At its peak, more than 200,000 college students rode shared bicycles together. The fleet stretched for dozens of kilometers from Zhengzhou, forming a spectacular scene.
This sparked concern among authorities, who were afraid they might be precursors of protests such as the “blank paper” movement — which opposed the Chinese government’s COVID-19 policies — or worse, and clamped down on activities outside campus.
When a government does not hold the principle of justice for all, it easily treats its citizens as potential enemies. In fact, many killings of government officials have occurred at an alarming rate lately.
Goldman Sachs has estimated that China’s local government debt total more than 94 trillion yuan (US$12.9 trillion), or more than half the size of the economy. Recent reports indicated that more than 10 million college students cannot find a job and have experienced homelessness.
Democracy and freedom are the only path forward to revive the Chinese economy.
Former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future.”
Where there is no future for the youth, there is no future for the country.
Chinese students’ longing for freedom of the press and liberty to form opposition parties cannot be overstated. Meanwhile, Taiwanese students want to be free from China’s constant harassment and military threats. Peace, prosperity and progress are what Taiwanese students strive for.
Trust is the currency of international cooperation. Until China removes all its missile arsenal aimed at Taiwan, Ma’s marching on an agenda that would bring the same fate of Chinese students to Taiwanese students would only be totally rejected.
It was well said that: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” For the sake of the youth — Chinese, Taiwanese or otherwise — Ma should be a staunch fighter for democracy and freedom, and switch to the right side of history.
James J. Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS