We want to explain that why
former-President Lee need struggle for Taiwan’s democracy again. Taiwan Solidarity Union Chairman
Huang Chu-wen said on Sept. 22, 2001 that former president Lee Teng-hui
has maintained a carefree attitude toward the Kuomintang’s decision to
revoke his membership and had urged people to devote themselves to the
typhoon relief works. Hunag made his remarks to
reporters after he personally called on former President Lee Teng-hui,
whom the TSU regards as its “spiritual leader.” Wearing his signature smile,
former President Lee Teng-hui did not seem to be bothered by the decision
made by the party that he lead for years. The 80-year-old former KMT
chairman, did not participate in any public functions but received his
guests at his official residence. Making no comments, Lee waved at the
reporters outside of his residence as he saw Chairman Huang off at the
door. The KMT, for the first time in its
107-year history, on Friday, revoked the membership of its party chairman.
The move brought complete closure to the much-debated issue of whether Lee
had violated the party’s regulations when he publicly stumped for TSU
candidates at campaign rallies. “Former President Lee’s
attitude remains carefree. What he concerns the most is that the KMT has
deviated from the path of ‘Taiwan first.’ Again, Lee requested that
all of us try our best to assist victims and families that suffered from
the typhoon and floods,” Huang told reporters during his visit with TSU
candidates to the typhoon-hit areas. Huang also quoted Lee as saying
that in the meantime people are busy in rebuilding their homelands and
politicians should stop talking about politics. All TSU-nominated
candidates should suspend their campaign activities and focus on assisting
residents to returning to their normal lives” he quoted Lee as saying. However, Huang reiterated
that “(the KMT’s move) to rescind former President Lee shows that the
KMT also rescinded localization which Lee symbolizes. If there is one thing that Taiwan
can learn from the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the US, it is how
Americans respond to a crisis. They are truly united behind the US. There
is no squabbling among politicians, no babbling from the media, and no
complaints from citizens. Everyone is united and has only one goal in
mind, ie, to seek justice and rebuild the country. This is the real
strength behind the mighty power of the US economy and its military. The
country is stable and moving forward like an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
By contrast, let’s reflect on what happened in the first year of
Taiwan’s first transfer of power. First the opposition leaders refused to show their support for Taiwan’s achievement by boycotting President Chen’s inauguration. This in effect set the tone for them to play the role of spoilers thereafter. The opposition parties and major media tried their best to create havoc against the government at every possible turn, hoping that instigating a disastrous term for Chen would ensure their return to power. Now, the cyclical world economy has reached its lowest point. There are rarely complaints from the US media or public against the Bush administration. In Taiwan, however, the
media and opposition parties continue their campaign, blaming Chen’s
government for every possible problem. They
have undermined the people’s confidence in the government and linked
Taiwan’s economic downturn to the stalemate in cross-strait relations. In
effect, they have more respect for China, Taiwan’s hostile neighbor,
than for Taiwan itself. With opposition parties and a media like this, who
needs an enemy in China? Taiwan’s biggest problem lies not in the
economy or in China, but in the lack of national identity and solidarity
among its citizens. In the US, these days, it has become rather
difficult to purchase a national flag from a store. In Taiwan, I am sure
there are plenty, since the country is as divided as before. Not long ago, Morris Chang,
chairman of Taiwan Semi-conductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the world's
largest contract chipmaker, gave a speech in which he said that the core
of the world's semiconductor industry will be moving to China in the next
10 years. He said that it is necessary for Taiwan to take part
aggressively in the development of China's semiconductor industry in view
of global industrial development and business cycles. On Sept. 5, however, Vice Minister
of Economic Affairs Yin Chi-ming said that Taiwan would remain a leader of
the semiconductor industry for the next five years, as China couldn't
possibly catch up with us in a mere five years. He also said that no one
knows what the situation will be in 10 years' time. Yin's statement was an
indirect rebuttal to Chang's speech. Yin also said that Taiwan's IC
manufacturers have invested as much as NT$1.4583 trillion here, while the
industry is upgrading its foundry technology to produce wafers with
advanced 0.15-, or even 0.13-micron technology. In China, however, the industry is
only able to produce wafers with 0.35-micron technology. The views of both men are valid.
Yin made his prediction on the basis of the fact that no Taiwanese company
had built wafer plants in China over the past five years. If talented local people, capital
and the leading foundry technology from the nation's semiconductor
industry do not relocate en masse to China -- as traditional industry and
IC suppliers did in the 1990s -- it is widely believed that China will be
unable to shake Taiwan from its leading role in the semiconductor industry
within five or even 10 years. In fact, the Chinese government
has tried its best to promote its IC industry since the early 1990s.
Although it specified the industry as a priority in both the "8th
Five-year Plan" (1990 to 1995) and the "9th Five-year Plan"
(1996 to 2000), its efforts failed due to Taiwan's ban on cross-strait
investments by local chipmakers. Major chipmakers have therefore
concentrated on Taiwan and striven to upgrade their technologies here. In
other words, China's semiconductor industry cannot take off if Taiwanese
businesspeople do not swarm across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese government has
succeeded in attracting investments from NEC Corporation and Motorola Ltd;
but US and Japanese companies are not as generous as Taiwanese
companies and will not easily give away their technologies, capital or
market. This is not to say that China is
unable to develop its economy without Taiwanese investment. But the lack
of such investment will obviously slow down the speed of its development.
This being the case, Yin's statement is quite right. The situation began to change
after Winston Wang, son of Formosa Plastics Group Since Wang's Shanghai Hong Li
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp and other Taiwanese
semiconductor-manufacturing companies were established in China, they have
given great impetus to the semiconductor industry there. Their plants have
also caught the eye of leading IC manufacturers around the world. Meanwhile, in Taiwan, repeated
calls for relaxing restrictions on chipmakers' investments in China have
been heard since the Economic Development Advisory Conference demanded the
"no haste, be patient" policy be replaced with "active
opening, effective management". If local chipmakers are allowed to
invest across the Strait, Beijing's favorable policies will inevitably
trigger a "China fever." The world's leading IC
manufacturers will also invest in China. Such developments will give
Beijing the bargaining chips it needs to demand greater and faster
technology transfers. Its goal of becoming the world center for
semiconductor manufacturing would follow rapidly. If that happens, then Chang's
statement would also be right. But what about Taiwan? The
nation's semiconductor industry and other high-tech industries may suffer
from insufficient capital and lack of research and development. Under
pressure from China these companies may quickly disappear. Although Taiwanese chipmakers will
continue their businesses in China, in the end they will be defined as
"Chinese companies," leaving Taiwan's financial sector burdened
by trillions of dollars in loans and debts. They will also leave many
unemployed people in Taiwan for the government and society to worry about
and deal with. In the long run, the nation will
not prosper but perish along with its high-tech industry. Since both Chang and Yin's views
are valid, which one is more likely to come true? Obviously, the answer lies in
"effective management." If the government only knows about
"active opening," which can easily be implemented, and solely
follows market operations, Chang's prediction will come true, as China is
going to become a high-tech kingdom. Market operations are only
concerned with commercial interests, but such interests do not necessarily
equate to social interests. In other words, after the government has
relaxed its regulations, local chipmakers will swarm to China where they
can enjoy red carpet treatment and low labor costs. The end result for
Taiwan, however, will be ruin. If the government knows what the
problems are, it should effectively manage Taiwanese investments in China
according to the best interests of the public. If this happens, Taiwan
will continue to lead in terms of its economic development in the next
decade and its high-tech industry will continue to prosper. Let's wait and see whether
Taiwan will be able to maintain its prosperity or whether it will be
swallowed up by China. In the aftermath of the terrorist
attacks on the US, President George W. Bush's administration has made an
admirable effort to confine the target of its counterattack to the
specific groups that perpetrated the attack. By severing association
between the attack and the Islamic world, the US demand for universal and
unconditional support gains legitimacy. This unconditional support should
also be asked of China. Currently China has attempted to place conditions
on its backing of anti-terrorist activities in exchange for US support for
China's crackdown on "separatism." The legitimacy of the US's
counterattack comes from the urgent need to put an end to international
terrorism so that innocent civilians will be able to live their lives
without fear. It is wrong to think the US is the lone target of terrorism.
Terrorism has already hit Europe, Africa, and of course the Middle East.
Even Taiwan was once pinpointed by Osama bin Laden as early as 1995 in a
protect titled "Project Bojinka" as a potential target for plane
hijacking. The international nature of this problem means the world -- and
China is no exception -- must give unconditional and unwavering support to
the war on terrorism. To seek worldwide solidarity, the
Bush administration has made painstaking efforts to single out only those
directly and indirectly responsible. After several public reiterations
that only the terrorist groups, rather than the Islamic world, are the
target of the US counterattack, Bush repeated the message during his
speech to the US Congress on Friday. In fact, Bush has praised the Islamic
religion as a religion of peace both during his meeting with the leader of
the world's largest Islamic country, President Megawati Sukanoputri of
Indonesia, and during an Islamic mass. Even President Pervez Musharraf of
Pakistan, one of the only three countries in the world that recognizes the
Taliban government, has said that "nobody is talking about a war
against Islam or the people of Afghanistan." Therefore, virtually all
Islamic nations support action against the terrorists. At a time when the world is
showing such unprecedented unity against terrorism, how ironic that China
should suggest that its backing has a price. Then again, no one
should be surprised by such extortion. After all, the world has witnessed
how China perfected this art by holding US scholars hostage in exchange
for US support for Beijing's hosting the Olympic Games and by holding
foreign firms such as Credit Suisse First Boston hostage to keep them from
having any contact with the Taiwan government. But then again, in view of
China's historical "friendship" and arms sales to Afghanistan
and terrorist groups, China must certainly feel reluctant about the war on
terrorism. China's kind of blackmail has a
lot in common with terrorism in that, once the perpetrators' demands are
met, they do it again, realizing the effectiveness of their methods.
Having found how effective such tactics are, it is no surprise that China
is using them again and again. If the US wants to stop this it has firmly
to say no. If the US caves in to China,
however, it may trigger an avalanche of demands from other countries
supporting its war on terrorism. How will it handle these demands and how
will it face true friends who ask for nothing in exchange? To a certain extent, China's
kind of extortion is an evil no less than terrorism. It would truly be
ironic if the world refuses to give in to terrorism but gives in to
extortion. So, Taiwan needs your support.
Yours Sincerely,
|
