2008年3月20日 星期四
2008年3月18日 星期二
Can Ma Control the KMT Old Guard?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was in full damage control mode last week, profusely apologizing for the arrogant behavior of his party's legislators and demonstrating, once again, that he has a long way to go before he can control the party that he is effectively supposed to lead.
When Ma became KMT party chairman in 2005, he promised to lead an opposition that would be willing to work with the ruling party. But time and again, from the failure to pass a reasonable arms budget to the KMT's stonewalling of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) choice of prosecutor general -- a candidate Ma openly supported -- conservative elements in the party threw egg on Ma's face.
Last week's apology came on the heels of KMT legislators Alex Fai (費鴻泰), Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才), Chen Chieh (陳杰) and Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) barging into Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) Taipei campaign office on Wednesday, alleging that state-owned First Commercial Bank had waived the office's rent.
The legislators' behavior sparked verbal and physical clashes with Hsieh supporters, who accusedethem of trespassing. One might call this kind of behavior astounding if it weren't in keeping with what we have come to expect from politicians not held accountable for their actions.
Exceptional, however, were statements made by Ma at a press conference a few days later, which fell on the third anniversary of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law -- which allows Beijing to use "non-peaceful" means against Taiwan if it sees fit.
"Taiwan enjoys sovereignty, and Taiwan's future should only be decided by Taiwanese people," Ma said.
He then went on to say that he adheres to a "three noes policy" of no unification, no independence and no use of force.
This was a significant departure from statements he made in 2006 to a Hong Kong newspaper, when he said that the "Taiwan problem should be jointly decided by the people on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait."
Leaving aside the bizarre logic of a "sovereign country" needing to avoid statements on whether or not it is independent, Ma's remarks about Taiwan's sovereignty should be seen as a partial reaction to the behavior of Fai and his ilk.
His language has as much to do with attracting middle-of-the-road voters and distracting the electorate from the presumptuous behavior of KMT legislators as it does sending a symbolic message to the old-boy network that Ma wants to put his stamp on the party. This is why he broke ranks with party ideology.
Ma is not stupid. He knows that the anachronistic pro-China policies of the KMT must give way to localization. But it isn't hard to imagine that a Ma presidency would see him apologizing for and battling with the KMT's old guard still holding on to the reins of power behind the scenes.
Many voters perceive Ma as a politician with integrity and the best chance the KMT has at reform. He has promoted this image for three years without being able to back it up through concrete action.
So the question remains: Can he drag the KMT out of its authoritarian past and bring it more in line with Taiwan's democratic future? And more specifically, does Ma have the ability to take control of his party?
The behavior of KMT legislators and Ma's aura of weakness suggest that he does not.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 19, 2008.
When Ma became KMT party chairman in 2005, he promised to lead an opposition that would be willing to work with the ruling party. But time and again, from the failure to pass a reasonable arms budget to the KMT's stonewalling of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) choice of prosecutor general -- a candidate Ma openly supported -- conservative elements in the party threw egg on Ma's face.
Last week's apology came on the heels of KMT legislators Alex Fai (費鴻泰), Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才), Chen Chieh (陳杰) and Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) barging into Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) Taipei campaign office on Wednesday, alleging that state-owned First Commercial Bank had waived the office's rent.
The legislators' behavior sparked verbal and physical clashes with Hsieh supporters, who accusedethem of trespassing. One might call this kind of behavior astounding if it weren't in keeping with what we have come to expect from politicians not held accountable for their actions.
Exceptional, however, were statements made by Ma at a press conference a few days later, which fell on the third anniversary of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law -- which allows Beijing to use "non-peaceful" means against Taiwan if it sees fit.
"Taiwan enjoys sovereignty, and Taiwan's future should only be decided by Taiwanese people," Ma said.
He then went on to say that he adheres to a "three noes policy" of no unification, no independence and no use of force.
This was a significant departure from statements he made in 2006 to a Hong Kong newspaper, when he said that the "Taiwan problem should be jointly decided by the people on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait."
Leaving aside the bizarre logic of a "sovereign country" needing to avoid statements on whether or not it is independent, Ma's remarks about Taiwan's sovereignty should be seen as a partial reaction to the behavior of Fai and his ilk.
His language has as much to do with attracting middle-of-the-road voters and distracting the electorate from the presumptuous behavior of KMT legislators as it does sending a symbolic message to the old-boy network that Ma wants to put his stamp on the party. This is why he broke ranks with party ideology.
Ma is not stupid. He knows that the anachronistic pro-China policies of the KMT must give way to localization. But it isn't hard to imagine that a Ma presidency would see him apologizing for and battling with the KMT's old guard still holding on to the reins of power behind the scenes.
Many voters perceive Ma as a politician with integrity and the best chance the KMT has at reform. He has promoted this image for three years without being able to back it up through concrete action.
So the question remains: Can he drag the KMT out of its authoritarian past and bring it more in line with Taiwan's democratic future? And more specifically, does Ma have the ability to take control of his party?
The behavior of KMT legislators and Ma's aura of weakness suggest that he does not.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 19, 2008.
Siew's Ideas Contradict KMT Policy
By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中, translated by Angela Hong
As the debate over the "cross-strait common market" heats up, how the average citizen understands the issue is becoming important. Faced with public doubt, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate, Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), have provided several basic responses.
First, the "cross-strait common market" is not their campaign platform. Second, the "cross-strait common market" focuses on economics, whereas the "one China market" is a political label. Last, they do not wish to open Taiwan to Chinese labor or agricultural products that are now banned.
But these arguments are dishonest and contradictory. The foreword, policy outline and action plan of the KMT's policy guidelines, passed during the 17th KMT National Congress in August 2005, all promote the "cross-strait common market." Would the KMT presidential candidate not implement the party's plans? If the guidelines passed by the highest authority of the KMT are empty words, how can we trust other promises of the party?
In Siew's book One Plus One is Two ? the Road Toward a Cross-Strait Common Market, he mentions the great political significance of such a market on page 17, debunking the explanation that the common market is limited to economic importance. On page 31, Siew claims that the "cross-strait common market" will become the foundational structure for the integration of cross-strait politics. He believes that Taiwan should participate in the peaceful rise of China.
On page 121, Siew says that economic partnership is the best starting point for peaceful cross-strait integration. Economic integration has various degrees. Why is the high-level goal of a common market the main policy objective?
Siew says on page 142 that only the emergence of a "cross-strait common market" can bring about total economic, social and political integration. To use the common market as the main strategy for cross-strait political integration is Siew's core concern. By claiming that the common market is purely economic, the pan-blue camp is contradicting itself.
On pages 144 and 152, Siew further emphasizes that the so-called "1992 consensus" must be accepted as the basis of negotiation for cross-strait economic integration. From this perspective, how is the Democratic Progressive Party's labeling of Siew's policy a "one China market" an insult?
The pan-blue camp's list of things that will not be open to China in a common market is also self-contradictory. In his book, Siew says on page 158 that the creation of a free-trade area and the progression toward a common market relies most importantly upon a series of policy and regulation adjustments, based on the free and liberal flow of goods, labor, funds, services, information and other production resources.
To achieve a common market, there needs to be intermediate stages -- such as establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) or a closer economic partnership agreement, as in the case between China and Hong Kong -- both of which involve the free flow of products and labor.
Siew is clearly aware of this, but he ignores the implications of the common market without providing any solutions to its possible problems. Is this the attitude of a responsible politician?
In the negotiations of the WTO or other FTAs, non-democratic and black-box procedures often draw heavy criticism from social rights groups. Ma and Siew have promised that future cross-strait negotiations will be transparent. However, though they have not yet been elected, and the negotiations have not yet begun, there are already a number of lies and contradictions. How can people believe their promises?
Narrow protectionist policies are of course not the final solution for average citizens. However, unlimited deregulation of trade and investment would also cause corresponding problems.
Faced with the "one China market" debate, we don't need lies or a war of words. We need honest politicians and active concern from the public to forge our own future with our own actions.
Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.
As the debate over the "cross-strait common market" heats up, how the average citizen understands the issue is becoming important. Faced with public doubt, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate, Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), have provided several basic responses.
First, the "cross-strait common market" is not their campaign platform. Second, the "cross-strait common market" focuses on economics, whereas the "one China market" is a political label. Last, they do not wish to open Taiwan to Chinese labor or agricultural products that are now banned.
But these arguments are dishonest and contradictory. The foreword, policy outline and action plan of the KMT's policy guidelines, passed during the 17th KMT National Congress in August 2005, all promote the "cross-strait common market." Would the KMT presidential candidate not implement the party's plans? If the guidelines passed by the highest authority of the KMT are empty words, how can we trust other promises of the party?
In Siew's book One Plus One is Two ? the Road Toward a Cross-Strait Common Market, he mentions the great political significance of such a market on page 17, debunking the explanation that the common market is limited to economic importance. On page 31, Siew claims that the "cross-strait common market" will become the foundational structure for the integration of cross-strait politics. He believes that Taiwan should participate in the peaceful rise of China.
On page 121, Siew says that economic partnership is the best starting point for peaceful cross-strait integration. Economic integration has various degrees. Why is the high-level goal of a common market the main policy objective?
Siew says on page 142 that only the emergence of a "cross-strait common market" can bring about total economic, social and political integration. To use the common market as the main strategy for cross-strait political integration is Siew's core concern. By claiming that the common market is purely economic, the pan-blue camp is contradicting itself.
On pages 144 and 152, Siew further emphasizes that the so-called "1992 consensus" must be accepted as the basis of negotiation for cross-strait economic integration. From this perspective, how is the Democratic Progressive Party's labeling of Siew's policy a "one China market" an insult?
The pan-blue camp's list of things that will not be open to China in a common market is also self-contradictory. In his book, Siew says on page 158 that the creation of a free-trade area and the progression toward a common market relies most importantly upon a series of policy and regulation adjustments, based on the free and liberal flow of goods, labor, funds, services, information and other production resources.
To achieve a common market, there needs to be intermediate stages -- such as establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) or a closer economic partnership agreement, as in the case between China and Hong Kong -- both of which involve the free flow of products and labor.
Siew is clearly aware of this, but he ignores the implications of the common market without providing any solutions to its possible problems. Is this the attitude of a responsible politician?
In the negotiations of the WTO or other FTAs, non-democratic and black-box procedures often draw heavy criticism from social rights groups. Ma and Siew have promised that future cross-strait negotiations will be transparent. However, though they have not yet been elected, and the negotiations have not yet begun, there are already a number of lies and contradictions. How can people believe their promises?
Narrow protectionist policies are of course not the final solution for average citizens. However, unlimited deregulation of trade and investment would also cause corresponding problems.
Faced with the "one China market" debate, we don't need lies or a war of words. We need honest politicians and active concern from the public to forge our own future with our own actions.
Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.
Ma Unclear on Chinese Diplomas
By Tung Chen-yuan 童振源, translated by Angela Hong
With only a few days to the presidential election, we're still seeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) dodge and deny various important policies that he had previously proposed, including the "cross-strait common market" and recognition of Chinese diplomas.
As election day arrives, Ma is purposefully distorting his own proposals and does not dare to stand up for or defend his own policies -- to the point of accusing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of discrediting him.
Take the issue of whether the government should recognize Chinese diplomas for example: This is a serious public policy concern, and Ma should give a clear explanation to the voters.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Hsieh have both clearly said that they are unwilling to recognize Chinese diplomas. KMT and People First Party legislators have repeatedly demanded that the government do otherwise. They have done all they can to pressure the government and they often encourage Taiwanese students to seek education in China.
In April 2006, after the Chinese Communist Party-KMT economic forums, Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), a KMT legislator and an important member of the Ma camp, immediately pushed for a petition in the legislature and successfully changed Article 22 of the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas obtained by Taiwanese students so that they can qualify for professional and government examinations and be allowed to work in the Taiwanese education system.
On April 26, 2006, Ma, as the chairman of the KMT, promised that the party would push for the recognition of Chinese diplomas and complimented Cheng Kung University president Wu Jing (吳京) for daring to recommend the recognition of Chinese diplomas while minister of education.
On April 28, Ma went so far as to say that if the future chair of the Mainland Affairs Council had a diploma from Beijing University, then the two sides could better communicate, and cited this as a supporting argument for his proposal of diploma recognition.
After becoming the KMT's presidential candidate, Ma, in a speech at National Chung Hsing University on June 18 last year, criticized the DPP government's refusal to recognize Chinese diplomas as an isolationist policy.
Regardless of whether one supports recognizing Chinese diplomas or not, as a presidential candidate, Ma should explain himself clearly to Taiwanese voters.
When Hsieh criticized the potential impact of Ma's proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma responded that Hsieh was twisting the truth.
On Feb. 29, after three years of openly proposing that Taiwan recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma amended the proposal for the first time, claiming that while Chinese diplomas would be recognized, people with Chinese diplomas would not be allowed to take examinations for professional qualifications. This obscures the focus of the policy debate and goes against Ma's original intent.
On March 8, Ma changed tack again and said that his proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas was aimed at facilitating cross-strait academic exchange, since otherwise it would be unreasonable to have to consider professors of Beijing University as uneducated if they came to Taiwan. Then Ma altered the focus further by emphasizing that he would not allow Chinese nationals to take qualification exams in Taiwan.
From demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas, to not allowing holders of Chinese diplomas to take professional examinations, to claiming that Chinese professors need to have diplomas to conduct academic exchanges in Taiwan, to not allowing Chinese nationals to take professional examinations in Taiwan -- Ma is constantly changing his position.
The pan-blue camp already controls almost three quarters of the legislature. If Ma becomes president, no one would be able to stop the government from recognizing Chinese diplomas.
Mr. Ma, please demonstrate your accountability and character by explaining and defending your policies: What is the purpose, and what would be the result of recognizing Chinese diplomas? Don't obscure and redirect the focus, and don't lie to voters just to become president.
Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
With only a few days to the presidential election, we're still seeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) dodge and deny various important policies that he had previously proposed, including the "cross-strait common market" and recognition of Chinese diplomas.
As election day arrives, Ma is purposefully distorting his own proposals and does not dare to stand up for or defend his own policies -- to the point of accusing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of discrediting him.
Take the issue of whether the government should recognize Chinese diplomas for example: This is a serious public policy concern, and Ma should give a clear explanation to the voters.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Hsieh have both clearly said that they are unwilling to recognize Chinese diplomas. KMT and People First Party legislators have repeatedly demanded that the government do otherwise. They have done all they can to pressure the government and they often encourage Taiwanese students to seek education in China.
In April 2006, after the Chinese Communist Party-KMT economic forums, Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), a KMT legislator and an important member of the Ma camp, immediately pushed for a petition in the legislature and successfully changed Article 22 of the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas obtained by Taiwanese students so that they can qualify for professional and government examinations and be allowed to work in the Taiwanese education system.
On April 26, 2006, Ma, as the chairman of the KMT, promised that the party would push for the recognition of Chinese diplomas and complimented Cheng Kung University president Wu Jing (吳京) for daring to recommend the recognition of Chinese diplomas while minister of education.
On April 28, Ma went so far as to say that if the future chair of the Mainland Affairs Council had a diploma from Beijing University, then the two sides could better communicate, and cited this as a supporting argument for his proposal of diploma recognition.
After becoming the KMT's presidential candidate, Ma, in a speech at National Chung Hsing University on June 18 last year, criticized the DPP government's refusal to recognize Chinese diplomas as an isolationist policy.
Regardless of whether one supports recognizing Chinese diplomas or not, as a presidential candidate, Ma should explain himself clearly to Taiwanese voters.
When Hsieh criticized the potential impact of Ma's proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma responded that Hsieh was twisting the truth.
On Feb. 29, after three years of openly proposing that Taiwan recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma amended the proposal for the first time, claiming that while Chinese diplomas would be recognized, people with Chinese diplomas would not be allowed to take examinations for professional qualifications. This obscures the focus of the policy debate and goes against Ma's original intent.
On March 8, Ma changed tack again and said that his proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas was aimed at facilitating cross-strait academic exchange, since otherwise it would be unreasonable to have to consider professors of Beijing University as uneducated if they came to Taiwan. Then Ma altered the focus further by emphasizing that he would not allow Chinese nationals to take qualification exams in Taiwan.
From demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas, to not allowing holders of Chinese diplomas to take professional examinations, to claiming that Chinese professors need to have diplomas to conduct academic exchanges in Taiwan, to not allowing Chinese nationals to take professional examinations in Taiwan -- Ma is constantly changing his position.
The pan-blue camp already controls almost three quarters of the legislature. If Ma becomes president, no one would be able to stop the government from recognizing Chinese diplomas.
Mr. Ma, please demonstrate your accountability and character by explaining and defending your policies: What is the purpose, and what would be the result of recognizing Chinese diplomas? Don't obscure and redirect the focus, and don't lie to voters just to become president.
Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
Time to End the Media's Distortion of the Truth
By Lillian Wang 王泰俐, translated by Eddy Chang
The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.
They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.
The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.
By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.
Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.
Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.
Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.
The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.
Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.
Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."
However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.
But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?
Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.
Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.
They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.
The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.
By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.
Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.
Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.
Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.
The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.
Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.
Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."
However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.
But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?
Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.
Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
It Could Happen To You
By Anonymous, of Guangzhou, China
I am Italian. I live and work in China. All the news about Tibet is blocked and filtered out, including YouTube. People here are blind.
No one has any interest in politics: This is the way China is; this is not freedom.
Taiwan is one of the most free countries on this planet, according to its Freedom House ranking -- more free than my own nation. In Taiwan, news is not censored and people have the freedom to hold different opinions.
I really hope and wish that before the coming election, Taiwanese realize what Taiwan would become if it moved closer to China.
I really hope Taiwanese will wake up and choose the party farthest from Chinese ideology, because what is happening in Lhasa could one day happen in Taipei, too.
For years, Beijing has been sending hundreds and hundreds of Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. In my country we call this ethnic cleansing and one day that could happen in Taiwan, too.
Identity is very important. Where we're from and who we are -- don't let that ever be erased, because our identity is our DNA. It is all we are about.
People here in China have no identity, no rights and no hope -- just some stupid TV programs to brainwash them.
I am Italian. I live and work in China. All the news about Tibet is blocked and filtered out, including YouTube. People here are blind.
No one has any interest in politics: This is the way China is; this is not freedom.
Taiwan is one of the most free countries on this planet, according to its Freedom House ranking -- more free than my own nation. In Taiwan, news is not censored and people have the freedom to hold different opinions.
I really hope and wish that before the coming election, Taiwanese realize what Taiwan would become if it moved closer to China.
I really hope Taiwanese will wake up and choose the party farthest from Chinese ideology, because what is happening in Lhasa could one day happen in Taipei, too.
For years, Beijing has been sending hundreds and hundreds of Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. In my country we call this ethnic cleansing and one day that could happen in Taiwan, too.
Identity is very important. Where we're from and who we are -- don't let that ever be erased, because our identity is our DNA. It is all we are about.
People here in China have no identity, no rights and no hope -- just some stupid TV programs to brainwash them.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
