independence for the island of Taiwan has been a long-smoldering
controversy. Recently "President" Chen Shui-bian deliberately
fanned the issue, causing it to burst into flames. Halfway into
his illegal and illegitimate "second term," Chen's approval ratings
had fallen to a mere 10% according to most public opinion polls,
and as low as 5% according to one poll. Chen desperately needed
to divert public attention from his administration's rampant corruption
and to consolidate support for himself among Taiwan independence
hardliners. Therefore on January 29, 2006, Chinese New Year, Chen
deliberately and maliciously dropped a political bombshell, by
announcing that he was contemplating abolishing the National Unification
Council and the National Unification Guidelines.
worked, like a charm. With the notable exception of the popular
TV talk show "21:00, The People Speak," whose panelists refused
to be diverted from their ongoing investigation into ruling DPP
malfeasance, most of the media began talking about Taiwan independence
vs. Chinese reunification. Few in the media talked about the Kaohsiung
Mass Rapid Transit (KMRT) scandal and other outrageous ruling
DPP regime scandals.
Independence, Not an Option
independence an option?
answer is no, absolutely not.
as even Chen Shui-bian himself conceded in a moment of rare honesty,
is "self-delusion [and] a myth." Taiwan independence is not a
real world option by any criterion one cares to contemplate. Taiwan
independence is neither constitutionally permissible, nor politically
practicable, nor culturally justifiable, nor economically profitable.
Taiwan independence is a non-starter, any way one looks at it.
harsh reality, one would think that Pan Blue political leaders
would have an easy time rebutting the ridiculous claims of Pan
Green demagogues. One would think that demolishing Pan Green arguments
for Taiwan independence would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
has not been the case. Pan Blue political leaders have seldom
succeeded in hitting any Pan Green fish as they swam mindlessly
in rhetorical circles. More often than not they have succeeded
only in shooting themselves in the foot, in snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory. Long-suffering Pan Blue supporters have a
expression for this phenomenon "you li shuo bu qin," which
roughly translated means, "To be in the right, but unable to make
15, 2006 China Post article entitled "KMT tries to clarify
ad with independence as possibility" reports on the latest
outbreak of this chronic Pan Blue ailment:
(KMT) leader Ma Ying-jeou and other officials yesterday scrambled
to clarify an advertisement published by the party suggesting
the KMT viewed independence for Taiwan as a possible option.
In a front page advertisement in the independence-leaning Liberty
Times the KMT's central headquarters published an ad touting
democracy as a means of determining the island's future and
listing independence as an option.
KMT firmly believes in the spirit of democracy that there are
many possible options for Taiwan's future. The people should
decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification,
independence or maintaining the status quo," the advertisement
independence as an option for the island's future would run
counter to the KMT's official charter and platform, which advocates
eventual unification with the mainland. The advertisement was
dubbed by local media yesterday as an enormous policy turnaround
for Taiwan's largest opposition party.
damage control clarifying the "independence is an option" issue
as a misunderstanding, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou has already suffered
political damage that he, the Pan Blue parties, and the Republic
of China can ill afford. A February 16, 2006 ERA TV opinion poll
revealed that 36.6% of the public believes that Ma's current position
on reunification and independence is either "very different" or
"slightly different" from what it was before the advertisement
ran. Considering that Ma's approval rating stood at 80% following
the December 2005 County and Municipal Elections, the perception
that Ma's position now is either "very different" or "slightly
different" can hardly be considered a positive development.
retirement from the political stage leaves Ma Ying-jeou as the
sole remaining Pan Blue leader in a position to rescue the island
from Taiwan independence Quisling misrule. A Pan Blue loss in
2008 is not an option. Four more years of Pan Green "wen hua tai
du" (culturally-oriented Taiwan independence) indoctrination is
a prospect too appalling to contemplate. That is why public relations
disasters such as the "independence is an option" fiasco must
never happen again.
worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt."
How did this
"independence is an option" fiasco happen? More importantly, why
did it happen? Most importantly, how can it be prevented from
happening ever again?
other similar fiascoes happened because too many Pan Blue leaders
feel morally disarmed in the face of Pan Green Political Correctness.
They feel morally disarmed, despite the fact that they are in
the right and their Pan Green adversaries are in the wrong, because
they lack confidence in their own "zhong ji tong yi" (Eventual
Reunification) political ideal. As a result, Pan Green assertions
of the "Right of Self-Determination" appear as sacred cows to
which they must meekly yield the right of way.
leaders must take the time to understand the merits and demerits
of Pan Blue and Pan Green ideology, inside out, backwards and
forwards. Only then will Pan Blue leaders be able to look Pan
Green adversaries straight in the eye, confident in the knowledge
that they, not their adversaries, occupy the moral as well as
legal high ground.
leaders must satisfy themselves that Eventual Reunification within
the framework of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law, soundly
trumps petty ethnic Hoklo Fascist "nation-building" in accordance
with the Rule of the Mob. Only then will Pan Blue leaders realize
that they need not, nay, must not, make timid concessions to Pan
Green Political Correctness.
As Ayn Rand
aptly noted, "The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt."
leaders, who after all, are Chinese patriots, must recall the
wisdom of the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi, who wrote:
"Know yourself, know your enemy. A hundred battles, a hundred
"Right of Self-Determination" confer legal, and more importantly,
moral legitimacy on the secessionist demands of Taiwan independence
Quislings? Does the "Right of Self-Determination" leave Pan Blue
leaders who insist on Eventual Reunification in accordance with
Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law with no leg to stand on?
"Right of Self-Determination" is a double-edged sword, an extremely
sharp sword that cuts both ways.
Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises noted in his book Liberalism:
of self-determination ... is ... the right of self-determination
of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an
independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible
to grant this right of self-determination to every individual
person, it would have to be done."
independence Quislings expect others to honor their demands for
political secession from China, then they are obligated to honor
others' demands for political secession from any "Nation of Taiwan"
they might succeed in founding. If Taiwan independence Quislings
refuse to honor others' demands for political secession from any
"Nation of Taiwan" they might succeed in founding, then others
are not obligated to honor their demands for political secession
of Singapore is a sovereign and independent nation, and a member
of the United Nations. With a population of just over 4 million,
three-fourths of whom are ethnic Chinese, Singapore is a mere
fifth the size of the Taiwan region of China, with a population
just under 23 million. Using Singapore as a hypothetical standard,
one could form five independent nations from the population of
of Nauru, a tiny island in the remote South Pacific, is also a
sovereign and independent nation, also a member of the United
Nations. With a population of 13,000 and a land area of 21 square
kilometers, Nauru is the smallest nation on earth, in both population
and land area. Using Nauru as a hypothetical standard, one could
form nearly 1,800 [ ! ] independent republics from the population
and consistent application of the "Right of Self-Determination"
would legitimize the secession of ever smaller political entities
from whatever larger political entity they currently belong to,
stopping only at the level of the individual. Principled and consistent
application of the "Right of Self-Determination" would authorize
every property owner on earth to hold a referendum, with himself
as the sole voter, declare his own private plot of land a sovereign
republic, and refuse to pay taxes to the nation, the state or
province, the city or county in which he (formerly) resided.
bitter post-election protests in 2004, many Pan Blue protestors
suggested that rather than suffer passively as Pan Green Quislings
engaged in creeping secession from China, the Pan Blue democratic
majority on Taiwan ought to seize the initiative and declare an
independent loyalist Chinese republic in the northern half of
the island, confirm Lien Chan as Pan Blue president, pay taxes
to Pan Blue officials, and leave Taiwan independence Quislings
in the south to starve themselves to death with their economically
suicidal protectionist policies.
As a champion
of "market anarchism" aka "anarcho-capitalism," I am willing to
accept the natural outcome of principled and consistent application
of the "Right of Self-Determination." In fact, I welcome it.
independence Quislings principled and consistent champions of
the "Right of Self-Determination?"
willing to honor demands for political independence from any would-be
"Republic of Taiwan" they might succeed in establishing?
obligated to honor their self-righteous, unilateral demands for
political independence from China?
to all these questions is "No, no, and no."
Quislings are self-centered narcissists who demand independence
for themselves, but refuse to allow independence for others. I
made this point in my column seven years ago, in 1999. At the
time I was merely making a logical inference. Now I am citing
an established fact.
To wit, a
June 16, 2004 Singapore's Straits Times news article entitled
"Taipei forcibly evicts hundreds who settled on leased government
land as their 'country within a country.'"
TAIPEI President Chen Shui-bian, widely believed to want independence
for Taiwan, has, ironically, denied the same to a group who
are the original Taiwanese the aborigines. His government,
on learning that hundreds of them have formed their own "Kaosha
Republic," ordered a crackdown, sending in 500 armed police
to disperse them from a site they have claimed as the seat of
their republic. The police raided the 6ha site in southern Kaohsiung
county early yesterday, ordering the inhabitants to evacuate
before four bulldozers tore down the more than 270 illegal structures.
The residents claimed they had been tricked by Chen aides, who
had told them that if they supported his re-election, their
"republic" would be legalised ... "A-Bian told us he would establish
'country within country' relations with the aborigines if we
voted for him," said Mr Tang Chao-cheng, a self-proclaimed "Speaker"
of the "Taiwan People Parliament." [The] Kaosha Republic...
had its own flag and anthem, and a temporary government and
One of the
most frequently heard complaints from Taiwan independence Quislings
is that authorities on the Chinese mainland refuse to refrain
from using force to forestall Taiwan independence.
This is perfectly
true. But so what?
regime behavior while suppressing Kaosha Republic independence
demonstrated that Taiwan independence Quislings had no qualms
whatsoever about using force to prevent Taiwan's Aborigines from
seceding from their Hoklo Chauvinist "Republic of Taiwan." Not
a single Pan Green champion of independence for Taiwan raised
his voice in protest when their Führer Chen Shui-bian ordered
storm troopers and bulldozers to forestall independence from
Taiwan. Not one.
Nor did a
single Pan Green champion of "Taiwan's Right of Self-Determination"
raise his voice in protest when their Vice-Führer Annette Lu scapegoated
Taiwan's Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation,
soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan's central mountain range.
Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved
no sympathy. They should be relocated en masse to Central and
South America for damaging Taiwan's ecology. The island should
be left in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence fascists
designate as "real Taiwanese," i.e., themselves.
do they have to complain when Pan Blue leaders insist on defending
the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic
of China, the first and oldest republic in Asia, one that has
been in continuous existence since 1912, and whose constitution
was modeled on the Constitution of the United States of America?
matter, what right to they have to complain when mainland Chinese
authorities pass an "Anti-Secession Law" defending the national
sovereignty and territorial integrity of China against undisguised
for Me but not for Thee
judgments must be "universalizable." This notion owed something
to the ancient Golden Rule... anyone who uses such terms as
right and ought is logically committed to universalizability.
To say that a moral judgment must be universalizable means...
if I judge a particular action... to be wrong, I must also judge
any relevantly similar action to be wrong. The same judgment
must be made in all conceivable cases... the same prescription
has to be made in all hypothetically, as well as actually, similar
Britannica.com, Ethics/20th-century Western ethics/Metaethics/Universal
If the nations
of the world wish to adopt revolutionary new rules authorizing
the "Right of Self-determination," then they are obligated to
honor everyones' "Right of Self-Determination," not just some
peoples' "Right of Self-Determination."
As the Britannica.com
entry made abundantly clear, moral judgments must be universalizable.
The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases. The same
prescription has to be made in all hypothetically as well as actually
If, on the
other hand, the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional
rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity,
then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are
fully within their rights to insist that Taiwan independence is
not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right
to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world
must respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
leaders can and ought to look Pan Green adversaries straight in
the eye, confident in the knowledge that they, not their Pan Green
adversaries, occupy the moral as well as legal high ground. Eventual
Reunification within the Rule of Law framework of a long-established
constitutional republic soundly trumps race-based Hoklo Fascist
"nation-building" on the basis of "democratic" Mob Rule. Not only
do Pan Blue leaders have no obligation to make pusillanimous concessions
to Pan Green Political Correctness, they have a solemn obligation
to seize the initiative and thoroughly discredit Pan Green ethnic
Progressive Party's Demagogic Populist Propaganda
defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to
be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture
and Information Department. In other words, he is their chief
27, 2006, Tsai Huang-liang posted an article at the Taipei
Times, posing the rhetorical question, "Would Ma allow vote
on nation's future?" In posting the article and posing the
question, Tsai was fulfilling his duty as chief demagogue. He
was preaching Taiwan independence doctrines he knew to be untrue
to men he knew to be idiots.
self-righteous question for Ma Ying-jeou was a rhetorical trap
intended to achieve one of two results.
was trying to pressure Ma Ying-jeou into conceding "Of course
I would allow a vote on the nation's future, after all there are
many possible options for Taiwan's future. The 23 million people
on Taiwan should decide on these options, regardless of whether
it is unification, independence, or maintaining the status quo."
If Ma were
to yield to such pressure and make such a public declaration,
the Taiwan independence nomenklatura would have extorted a strategic
concession from the undisputed leader of the Pan Blue alliance,
for which there would be hell to pay down the road. Ma would either
have to repudiate his initial concession, in which case he would
come across as weak and indecisive, or he would have to make endless
future concessions consistent with his initial concession, in
which case the both the Kuomintang and the Republic of China would
be forever lost.
Two, if Ma
Ying-jeou remained sufficiently alert to steer clear of Tsai's
rhetorical trap, Tsai would attempt to make Ma's refusal to take
the bait appear guiltily evasive.
If this sounds
like a case of "you can't win for losing," you're right. Finding
oneself trapped in such a no-win situation is the predictable
result of ideological confusion. Ideological confusion leads to
ideological self-doubt. Ideological self-doubt leads to ideological
evasion. Ideological evasion leads to ideological passivity, to
a cringing, defensive political posture in which one waits to
be hit and is too cowed by "unearned guilt" to even complain.
escape from such a dilemma is to stop defending and start attacking.
In politics as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
To stop defending
and start attacking however, one must first clarify ones' own
ideological position and confirm that one holds the moral as well
as practical high ground. Only then can one seize the initiative
and go on the offensive.
how Tsai is guilt-tripping Ma Ying-jeou with Taiwan independence
Political Correctness, and how Ma Ying-jeou can turn things around.
PC: Tsai Huang-liang notes that 'During Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's tour of Europe, the KMT placed
an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister
paper), stating that, "The Chinese Nationalist Party firmly believes
that, in keeping with the spirit of democracy, there are many
options for Taiwan's future, be it reunification, independence
or the status quo. It is necessary that the choice be made by
Rebuttal: Let's not mince words. Tsai may be wrong about everything
else, but he's right about the ill-conceived KMT ad. The KMT ad
in the Liberty Times was a fiasco. It "gave away the store."
KMT Chairman KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou had to repudiate it, and
having repudiated it, must not second-guess himself.
with the spirit of democracy?"
The Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a republic, a
Under a democracy,
there are indeed "many options for the nation's future," because
under a democracy anything goes. A democracy, as Thomas Jefferson
warned his fellow Americans, "is nothing more than mob rule, where
fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the
other forty-nine." History has since proved Jefferson and his
fellow Founding Fathers right, many times over. Perhaps the most
sobering proof that democracy is nothing more than mob rule surfaced
in 1935, when an economically prosperous, culturally advanced
Western European democracy enacted the infamous Nuremberg Laws,
stripping away the rights of a defenseless minority.
Under a republic,
on the other hand, there are very few "options for the nation's
future," because under a republic, not everything goes. Under
a republic "options for the nation's future" are severely limited
by the nation's constitution. Under a constitutional republic,
explicit constitutional constraints protect minorities and individuals
from capricious mob passions.
For the record,
the Constitution of the Republic of China, like the constitution
of most nations, does not include the option of independence.
For the record,
America's Articles of Confederation do not include provisions
for political independence either, for the simple reason that
the several states were already sovereign and independent. Article
II stipulates instead that "Each state retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right
which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the
United States in Congress assembled."
have forgotten that each of the states is technically a nation
unto itself. We are reminded of this fact when state officials
ritualistically refer to their state as the "sovereign state of
Maryland" or the "sovereign state of Virginia."
Americans refer to as "America" or "the USA" is technically a
confederation of independent states. Retaining pre-existing sovereignty
and independence within a confederation such as these United States
of America, is an entirely different matter from acquiring independence
from a pre-existing unitary state such as China.
insists that "It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."
Huang-liang not know that the choice was made by the people? The
choice was made by the people in 1912, when the Constitution of
the Republic of China was enacted, just as the choice was made
by the American people in 1789, when the Constitution of the United
States of America was enacted.
alternative under consideration is market anarchism, in which
we are talking about a whole other ballgame, then the Constitution
of the United States is a perfectly serviceable constitution.
The fact that it is over 200 years old isn't a problem. It merely
needs to be honored instead of ignored. It isn't a "living, breathing
document" with "penumbras and emanations" that need to be "interpreted."
It's written in English, not Chinese.
is the George Washington of modern China. Sun modeled the Constitution
of the Republic of China on the Constitution of the United States
of America. The Constitution of the Republic of China is also
a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is nearly
100 years old isn't a problem either. It too merely needs to be
honored instead of "amended" irresponsibly on an annual basis.
The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution.
There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One
Taiwan Constitution. It doesn't need to be "interpreted." It's
written in Chinese, not English.
PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There are] fundamental
differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future
of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy."
Rebuttal: God, I hope so. I certainly hope there are "fundamental
differences between the KMT's and DPP's approach to the future
of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy." God forbid that
the KMT's approach to Taiwan's future and to "democracy" bear
any resemblance whatsoever to the DPP's.
approach to the future of Taiwan is embodied in the Constitution
of the Republic of China, which was authored by KMT party founder
Sun Yat-sen. The Republic of China, or ROC, has democratic features,
but it is not a democracy. It is, as its name implies, a republic.
A republic is governed by its constitution.
to the Constitution of the Republic of China, or ROC, Taiwan is
a province of China. According to the Constitution of the People's
Republic of China, or PRC, Taiwan is also a province of China.
Both the ROC and PRC consider Taiwan a province of China.
of the 25 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the
ROC government in Taipei considers Taiwan a province of China.
Every one of the 165 nations that maintains diplomatic relations
with the PRC government in Beijing considers Taiwan a province
of China. The United Nations considers Taiwan a province of China.
The whole world considers Taiwan a province of China. The KMT's
approach to the future of Taiwan respects both this undeniable
political reality and the ROC Constitution.
approach to the future of Taiwan on the other hand, is reflected
in its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The DPP's Resolution
on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent
country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither
a province nor a special administrative region of China."
Resolution on Taiwan's Future is what Chinese refer to as "zi
qi, qi ren" or "self-deception, and deception of others." It is
a futile attempt by the DPP to convince themselves and the outside
world that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
try as they might, DPP officials have never been able to convince
even themselves that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan
is the Republic of China." They know "it just ain't so," and the
knowledge sticks in their craw. That's why they keep returning
to previous, more extreme demands for a "Taiwanese Constitution"
in 2006, and a formal declaration of Taiwan independence in 2008.
Who tells a Lie
PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There is] an issue
even more crucial ... namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism
that respects the public's decision. Ma has not clearly said whether
the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan,
or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
The latter violates the first principle of democracy [ ! ] ...
The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide
the future of Taiwan [by means of] a referendum on sovereignty
... Ma ... has no clear stance on this issue ... [He] should declare
... whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed
to decide their own future in a referendum."
Rebuttal: What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they insist that
"including the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait violates
the first principle of democracy?" What kind of arrant nonsense
is this? According to the constitutions of both the ROC government
in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing, the territory and
populace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same
nation. By what right does a Quisling nomenklatura on one side
of the Strait deny hundreds of millions of fellow citizens on
the other side of the Strait the right to determine the future
of their own nation?
What do Tsai
and the DPP mean when they make the ringing declaration: "The
DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide
the future of Taiwan [by means] of a referendum on sovereignty?"
Who are "the people" they refer to? Are they all of the people,
or just some of the people?
Do they mean
the DPP has, unbeknownst to libertarians the world over, suddenly
joined the ranks of principled and consistent champions of the
Right to Self-Determination? Does the DPP now champion the right
of everyone, not just themselves, to secede from whatever political
entity they currently live under?
Do they mean
the Quisling DPP regime's "democratic" and "progressive" referendum
on sovereignty will guarantee the right of others to secede from
the DPP's newly founded "Nation of Taiwan?"
Do they mean
the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Aborigines to secede
from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own
Do they mean
the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Hakka minority to
secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their
own Hakka republic?
province of Taiwan is divided into 23 counties. The KMT, NP, and
PFP control 17 counties. The DPP controls only six counties. The
northern and eastern two-thirds of Taiwan's land area is under
Pan Blue control.
Do Tsai and
the DPP mean the DPP now champions the right of "Greater China"
patriots to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to
establish their own loyalist Chinese republic comprising the 17
Pan Blue controlled counties?
Not on your
What they mean
is that the Quisling DPP regime will continue misusing Republic
of China citizens' hard-earned taxes for the next two years, indoctrinating
Republic of China citizens into thinking of themselves as "Taiwanese,
not Chinese." At the end of that period, in 2008, they will provoke
a military crisis, declare a "state of national emergency," then
stampede the public into rubberstamping formal independence in the
name of an ersatz "Taiwanese patriotism."
mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will magnanimously "permit"
Republic of China citizens to participate in an elaborate charade
to found a "Nation of Taiwan," period. Loyal Republic of China
citizens unhappy about suddenly and involuntarily transformed
into "citizens of the Republic of Taiwan" will just have to lump
the DPP's Potemkin Referendum will ensure "independence for me,
but not for thee." It will ensure "secession for me, but not for
thee." It will ensure "self-determination for me, but not for
thee." This, the DPP apparently feels, does not "violate the first
principle of democracy." This, the DPP apparently feels, qualifies
as "allowing the people of Taiwan to decide their own future in
for Me but not for Thee
PC: Tsai Huang-liang maintains that "Prior to the public's
making a decision, all options should be open and there should
be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate
basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and
the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the
main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however,
still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration
that the public's decision will be respected. Finally, all groups
must accept the results of a democratic and public decision ...
any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their
own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The
question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in
favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat."
Rebuttal: Tsai and the DPP insist that "all options should
be open and there should be no biases or conditions."
If only they
meant it. Unfortuntely, they don't.
What do Tsai
and the DPP actually mean? They mean that all options that enable
them to get what they want should be open, and there should
be no biases or conditions that prevent them from getting
what they want. Taiwan independence Quislings are not champions
of the Right to Self-Determination. Taiwan independence Quislings
are champions of the Right to Self-Determination for Taiwan independence
the DPP assert that "there is no legitimate basis for the existence
of the National Unification Council and the National Unification
Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP
advocates their abolishment."
but unless Tsai and the DPP are willing to forgo enacting an "Anti-Secession
Law" of their own, unless they are willing to guarantee the right
of others to secede from their "Nation of Taiwan," at others'
and not their discretion, unless they are willing to forgo national
unity and territorial integrity for their newly founded "Nation
of Taiwan," unless they are willing to see their own "Nation of
Taiwan" disintegrate before their very eyes, then they had best
shut their traps, cease their yammering about "no biases or conditions,"
and stop pretending that they occupy the moral high ground on
the issue of the Right to Self-Determination.
PC: Tsai Huang-liang concludes by saying that "The question
of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future
in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important
than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may
also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma."
Rebuttal: Tsai's statement is of course, far too myopic and
question is how to let sovereign and independent individuals decide
their own futures in an unbiased manner, whether through referenda
or other means. This is far more important than accepting any
collective's demands for nation-building. And if truth be told,
it is a question in far more urgent need of a response from Tsai
Huang-liang than from Ma Ying-jeou.
independence be an option?
No. Not if
one has one iota of respect for Constitutionalism and the Rule
If the nations
of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national
sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese
on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland cannot be faulted for insisting
that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence
Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that
the nations of the world must respect China's national sovereignty
and territorial integrity.
If, on the
other hand, the nations of the world are serious about phasing
out constitutional republicanism, then let it be for the sake
of something truly worthy, for market anarchism, and not for the
Taiwan independence movement's atavistic, race-based, petty tribalist