Shih Hsin university to launch program in China

STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 2

Shih Hsin University said it would launch a master’s credit cohort program in Shanghai at the end of this month, targeting Taiwanese businesspeople in China.

The program is aimed at giving Taiwanese investors and employees in China an opportunity to pursue advanced studies in the field of communication management, said Shen Tsung-nan (沈宗南), deputy head of the Shanghai-based Shih Hsin Extension Education Institute, which will host the classes.

In the initial stage, the program will be offered to 30 students, with classes held one weekend a month starting on Oct. 31, Shen said.

The purpose of the program is to provide a fast track for China-based Taiwanese to obtain a master’s degree from the university, Shen said.

He said the university would apply with the Ministry of Education at the end of this month to allow graduate credit hours earned in Shanghai to be counted toward a master’s degree.

The ministry’s decision is expected to be released in late January, he said.

Under Taiwan’s education regulations, credits earned outside the country cannot count toward a graduate degree at Taiwanese schools, Shen said.

The courses to be offered at the institute are those for which credits are most commonly transferred, he said. They include organization theory and management, communication theory, media marketing and management, and human resource management in the media.

At the start of the program, the students will enroll in two classes — organization and management, and communication theory, Shen said.

Peng Si-zhou (彭思舟), head of the Department of International Business at the Taipei College of Maritime Technology, said there was high demand among Taiwanese businesspeople in China for further study opportunities to improve their knowledge, particularly in the cultural and creative industry and the service sector.

In the short term, offering classes to Taiwanese across the Strait is a good way for private universities to expand business, Peng said, adding that about 1 million Taiwanese are based in China.

Animal lovers brave foul weather for ‘dog-a-thon’
　

LIKE-MINDED: Members of Animals Taiwan and other pet lovers used World Animal Day to remind people that humane methods to deal with stray animals
　

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 2

“We want to use the opportunity ... to tell the people of Taiwan that adoption saves, abandonment kills.”— Rosa Huang, Animals Taiwan secretary-general
　

Braving the pre-typhoon weather, dozens of dogs participated in yesterday’s dog-a-thon, the first parade for pets ever held in Taipei.

The event, organized by Animals Taiwan, was held at Civic Plaza in front of Taipei City Hall on World Animal Day yesterday. Hundreds of animal lovers and dozens of dogs, from Labradors to golden retrievers, were at the event.

Despite poor weather as Typhoon Parma approaches Taiwan, the rain did not put out the passion of animal lovers who attended.

A 40-year-old woman surnamed Chiang was in attendance, along with her husband and their black-haired poodle. Both wore the same light-blue T-shirts, while the poodle wore a doggie raincoat.

“I came because I want my dog to meet and socialize with other dogs,” she said.

Dozens of stalls, from food and beverage sponsors to veterinarians and other pet-related services, were set up.

World Animal Day originated at an ecological convention in Florence, Italy, in 1931. Though it started as a means to shed light on the plight of endangered species, since then it has become a celebration of all animal species around the world. It is held every year on Oct. 4 in honor of the Feast Day of St Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals.

Among notable attendees were Democratic Progressive Party Taipei City Councilor Wu Su-yao (吳思瑤), Discovery Channel’s Fun Taiwan show host Janet Hsieh (謝怡芬) and celebrity Ivy Hsu (許嘉凌).

“We hope to create an environment where animals can be free of suffering and promote the use of humane methods to resolve the problem of stray animals,” Animals Taiwan secretary-general Rosa Huang (黃蘊茹) said. “This time, we want to use the opportunity of World Animal Day to tell the people of Taiwan and the world that adoption saves, abandonment kills.”

Comprising mainly volunteers, Animals Taiwan was established five years ago to deal with pet overpopulation through education, adoption and outreach programs. The organization became a government-registered non-profit group last year.

PLA analysis must go beyond numbers
　

MORE THAN BEAN COUNTING: A Heritage Foundation fellow says the military systems not on display during Beijing’s Oct. 1 parade are more important that those that were

STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA, HONG KONG
Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 3

Sustained efforts will be needed to detect and understand China’s military approach following the recent showcase of its military hardware during the Oct. 1 parade in Beijing, said Dean Chang, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The People’s Republic of China celebrated its 60th national day on Thursday with a display of domestically developed weaponry in its largest-ever parade, which included nuclear-capable missiles, fighter aircraft, aerial drones and other advanced weapons.

Chang said in an article that in some respects the big guns displayed were a distraction.

Lower-profile command, control and communications systems — such as airborne early-warning and control aircraft and satellite-communication devices — more accurately reflected the comprehensive challenge of China’s growing military capabilities, he said.

These systems might not look particularly special in a parade, but they evince the increasing sophistication of China’s strategic thinking and technology, he said.

China is not aiming to match the US weapon-for-weapon, he said. Rather, it is pursuing an “asymmetric” approach. Beijing’s view of future warfare, expounded in People’s Liberation Army (PLA) analyses, focuses more on enabling the PLA to gather, transmit and exploit information, while denying an opponent that same ability, Chang said.

Less noticeable, but arguably even more important and worrisome, Chang said, is a coherent doctrine and improved training regimens. PLA training efforts include extensive exercising of command-and-control capabilities, employing forces that cross military region boundaries and “conducting training in complex electromagnetic environments,” a reference to electronic warfare and cyber warfare.

He said the US needs long-term, in-depth analyses of Chinese capabilities that go beyond the “bean counting” of new systems to look at logistical capabilities and training regimens.

This will require extensive examination of Chinese-language material such as PLA reference volumes, textbooks and other official publications, as much of this will involve doctrinal changes and adjusted metrics rather than physical systems. This, in turn, entails expanding the ranks of analysts familiar with Chinese military publications and capable of assessing their authoritativeness, he said.

Addressing changes to Chinese strategy will also require maintaining a substantial US force in the East Asian region and conventional capabilities in the area — both to reassure allies and to signal to China that the US has not abandoned its commitment to the region, he said.

The most difficult challenge for US policy-makers, however, will be interacting with members of the PLA. There is arguably no better means of learning about changes within a military than by talking with its members, observing its exercises, and going to its academies and institutions of higher military education.

He said the US clearly continued to be the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific region, but that China was gaining fast and that Beijing’s expanding range of national interests and military capabilities suggest there will be greater likelihood of contact with the US, both in and outside Asia.

It was important to reduce the chance of misunderstandings or miscalculations, both in terms of capability and intentions, he said, but this would be impossible unless US analysts get access to more data about China’s capabilities.
　

China to ‘rule the world,’ British author says Part 2
　

CONTESTED MODERNITY: In part two of an interview with “Taipei Times” staff reporter J. Michael Cole, author Martin Jacques discusses modernity, Taiwanese independence and the ‘fall of the West’

Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 3
　

Taipei Times: In your book you mention the concept of “contested modernity.” From that angle, Taiwan’s modernity was informed by both its colonial experience under Japanese rule — at a time when Meiji Japan itself was modernizing — and its ties with the West, especially the US. Do these experiences mean that Taiwanese modernity and Chinese modernity are different? How does this influence views on independence, the nation-state, and what impact will it have on cross-strait negotiations?

Martin Jacques: A people’s sense of identity is not a very contingent phenomenon. Peoples who think they should be independent from a nation that they regard as repressive, stranger or even alien — those kinds of feelings usually have a very long historical geniality. In the Balkans, for example, things that you thought had been put to bed suddenly get out of bed. But the period you’re talking about [Japanese colonization and Western influence] is quite short. We must draw a distinction between Taiwanese/Chinese identity and what you’re talking about. As an island, clearly Taiwan has distinctions from China. Islands do. Having said that, it’s clear that Taiwanese also have a great deal in common with Chinese culture. Taiwanese identity in this context is rather limited. What gives it its strength is not that it is predominant over Chinese identity, but that it is separate.

This also speaks to China, which over as long historical period has developed a very strong sense of identity, even though there are vast differences within it. So the Taiwanese condition also speaks to the Chinese condition. Many of the things you say about Taiwan you can say about provinces of China. The politicization of this issue by the Democratic Progressive Party and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who was quite influenced by Japan, maybe was quite heavily driven by the Western element and the Japanese element. It is also the product of geopolitics, but the geopolitical structures are being remade really quickly. Japan is in decline, and so is the West, especially in this region. As a result, the Taiwanese independence movement might [be in decline] as well.

Taiwan regards itself to be independent and China regards Taiwan to be part of China. Both are realities. In some way, Taiwan exists in a strange space and is being throttled by the situation. Coming back to Taiwan this time — airports are symbolic in the region. Every country has a new airport. Airports speak to internationalization. The airport here is really down the hill now, to the point where I felt slightly upset about it. It has barely changed in any feature since I was here in 1999. That suggests a certain isolation in Taiwan, of course it’s because it doesn’t have all those international relations and so on. It bothered me that there aren’t many airplanes. The last airport in the region I went to like this was Hanoi in 1999. [Taiwan Taoyuan] feels like a real old-style regional city airport. Because of its situation, Taiwan is always outside of agreement. I think this is hurting Taiwan. There is a sense this time — and I’ve never felt this before — that history’s just passed it by.

My instinct about Taiwan is that there will be some kind of rapprochement with China. I think eventually the Chinese will say, if you accept Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, just get on with it. There eventually will be a solution which recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, but it will be in return for a lot more latitude, flexibility and independence than Hong Kong has seen. It’s the only way it can take place. China would, for all sorts of reasons, be hugely satisfied with just Chinese sovereignty, because of the historical connotations. I think the Chinese will be very “civilizational state” about it.

TT: Do you expect a different reaction to your book in the US than the one you’ve seen in Asia and Europe?

Jacques: The reaction in China has been very favorable. There’s a sense I’ve made a big effort to understand China. Also, it acknowledges China as changed and paints a picture that makes them feel good, so they like that. They feel I’m definitely not hostile to China. In fact, I’m quite optimistic about its future. The best reviews in the UK were made by ‘big picture’ people. The critical ones came from narrow-interest groups that focus on human rights and so on, or those that stick to a Western perspective.

I’m very interested to see what the reaction in the US will be. In a way, it could be negative in the way that part of the Chinese reaction has been positive because I’m saying that China is going up and America is going down. It’s also true, however, that the US also has a lot of ‘big picture’ people. I think there will be a lot of Americans who will be on my wavelength. Still, my book’s rather unusual for a Westerner because I don’t get very exercised about the problem of democracy. I am concerned about it, but I don’t think everything begins and ends with the problem of democracy. In fact, I think the problem of ethnicity and race is a bigger question.

TT: You mention that the West and the US could resort to a trade war if they see the current international system as befitting China too much. Are we on the brink of a trade war?

Jacques: So far we’ve only seen skirmishes. But if it carried on and were to turn into a trade war, it would start like this anyway. The global recession and the rise of China — the rise of one country and the decline of another — means we’re seeing a classic era of instability. The truth is, however, that China hasn’t really been demonized in the US, nothing like what happened vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Ever since the Mao-Nixon rapprochement, relations between the US and China have been surprisingly stable and positive — so far.

It wouldn’t be difficult to imagine a situation where it flipped, where factors on either side exacerbated matters until things get out of control. It wouldn’t be difficult to see China become the object of a new clash. But is it going to happen? There are constraints on China and the US regarding the debt and China’s reserves. It’s very important for the US to keep China on side, because if China pulls the rug, you can see the end of the dollar as a reserve currency. On the other hand, the Chinese don’t want to do it because it would screw up the value of their reserves, because the collapse of the dollar equates to the collapse of the value of their reserves. This is different from the Soviet era, because the Soviets were never part of the system; China is not only part of the system, it’s a big part of it. This doesn’t mean a clash will not happen, but the constraints are strong.

[US President Barack] Obama is probably the first American president who knows that American power is actually not unlimited. Obama tacitly recognizes the new world, while [former president] George W. Bush was in denial of it. The presidency is getting tougher, there will be big conflicts in US politics and it could turn nasty — over healthcare, for example.

As a consequence, with China rising, the political right could be reborn in a new form post-Obama and there will be a particularly toxic version of it. I would not be surprised if there were an anti-China element to it.

America is going to find itself progressively displaced by the rise of China — disorientated, dislocated, and that is going to be a very painful experience for the US. I speak as someone who’s watched [over] the last 50 years how Britain handled this as a former imperial power.

Part I of this interview ran on Sunday, Oct. 4

An awkward silence on Oct. 1

Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 8

October, when both Taiwan and China celebrate their national days, is an awkward month. For the past 60 years, it was enough to ignore China’s national day celebrations. But with relations changing, the government is criticized no matter what it does. Every country in the world sent representatives to the celebrations in Beijing or sent congratulatory telegrams. The only country afraid of making any statement was Taiwan, which lately pays such careful attention to pleasing Beijing.

Even though the government’s pro-China stance is clear for all to see, it sought to dissuade retired military officers, legislators and national policy advisers from attending the celebrations in Beijing. The chairman of China Airlines was publicly berated by the premier, who called his attendance at the festivities “inappropriate.”

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insists that neither side refutes the existence of the other, but if that were true, the government should have sent representatives to the celebrations.

Yet if the government had allowed politicians and businesspeople to attend, it would have violated a political taboo and ignored mainstream public opinion. That would have brought a storm of criticism from the opposition and sent the government’s approval ratings even lower.

The military equipment, missiles and tanks displayed in the parade through Tiananmen Square could be used against Taiwan in the event of a conflict and Taiwan’s defense minister has said our main potential enemy is China.

It is unacceptable that members of the ruling party would be allowed to visit the political center of our main enemy to applaud and cheer a display of arms that are a direct threat to this nation. The question is what the public thinks about this.

Cross-strait relations are not just a “special state-to-state relationship” as former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) put it, but a particularly awkward one.

Taiwan is the only country in the world that cannot call China “China.” If any other country referred to China as “the Chinese Communist Party” (CCP), “the Chinese communists” or “the Chicoms,” Beijing would protest.

By contrast, if Ma called China “China,” Beijing would see it as a major provocation. If the government were to send a telegram to congratulate China on its National Day, it would be tantamount to breaking off relations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP.

The ruling and opposition parties are both inconsistent on Taiwan’s national status and cross-strait relations. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has always held that China and Taiwan are two separate countries, said and did nothing on the occasion of China’s 60th anniversary. Its silence breached international protocol. The DPP could have wished China a happy National Day and thereby expressed its view that Taiwan is not part of China.

Now China’s National Day is over. This weekend Taiwan will mark its “Double Ten” National Day. What role will our government give to Chinese people in the celebrations? It could do as China did by inviting politicians from across the Taiwan Strait. It could, for example, invite members of China’s People’s Political Consultative Conference, as well as Chinese students in Taiwan or dissidents to take part. In that way, Taiwan could reciprocate China’s invitation.

Don’t appease China
　

Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 8

If China would leave Taiwan alone, the Taiwanese would never choose to go to war with China.

The problem is, for Taiwan today, there is no choice between peace and war. Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.

China taking over Taiwan would rob it of peace, democracy and human rights. China taking Taiwan would be an injustice that begets more injustice.

So the choice is between slavery or fighting for freedom — today through non-military means, but perhaps one day with weapons of war.

Unfortunately, many in Taiwan have deluded themselves into thinking that being annexed by China would be better than fighting for freedom. People from many other countries share the same delusion about China and Taiwan.

The late British prime minister Neville Chamberlain had similar delusions about Nazi Germany.

Allowing China to annex Taiwan would lead to more war in the future, with China’s aggressive expansionism, militant nationalism and Leninist imperialism felt by other neighboring countries — and not just ones on the border.

Furthermore, other brutish authoritarian regimes would be emboldened by the lack of consequences over China’s actions. Many other wars would be started by these regimes.

NAME WITHHELD

Animals have rights, too

Nestled in hills of lush greenery and surrounded by pineapple and sugarcane fields, the rustic college campus where I work offers a wonderful learning environment. Before the semester began, while strolling down the pink brick road, I saw a three-legged yellow dog — whom I called “Charlie” — skinny as a rail and looking hungry. I fed him my red bean pastry.

Another day, as I rode my bicycle to school, Suzuki, another stray dog, followed me all the way to my office in hopes of a bit of food. He was hungry enough to follow me about 1km. As I walked to my office, Fluffy, a white and orange cat, was scrounging through trash for leftovers.

The campus is bustling now with students and the Student Activity Center is packed with freshmen. The start of the school year affects the welfare of these stray dogs and cats.

One day I came across Charlie, wobbling along the road. He looked well-fed and content. Obviously he is in the good hands of some young students. Later, I saw one young woman brushing the hair of another stray and playing with him.

Suzuki no longer follows me — there is enough food from kind-hearted students. He even turned down my offer of a doughnut the other day.

Fluffy no longer whines from hunger and is rarely seen at garbage bins.

Education, at least at this campus, may play a role in making the younger generation more conscientious about the welfare of animals.

Such empathy on the part of the students speaks volumes about the success of civic education.

Of course, there is still much to be done to improve the treatment of animals in Taiwan when compared with the excellent treatment of pets in the US and other developed countries: better access to veterinarians, requirements for shots and the promotion of neutering and spaying to control the pet population.

There is no denying that more must be done to control the population of stray dogs and cats in Taiwan.

However, the fate of these animals is much worse in other Asian counties. We must object strongly to the eating of cats and dogs in some countries.

From a humanitarian point of view, we must respect the right to life for humans and animals alike. I tip my hat to the students on this campus who care about animal suffering and actually do something about it.

YANG CHIN-WEI
Chiayi
　

Stop focusing on China alone

With a tsunami in Samoa, an earthquake in Indonesia and typhoons and flooding in the Philippines, Taiwan’s government and humanitarian organizations should help out.

Taiwan is the Austronesian homeland of Hawaiiki and could be a leader in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Taiwan has the resources and ability. Taiwan should stop focusing on China alone and look out toward the world.

JOEL LINTON
Taipei

Taiwan is not the ROC or the PRC

Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 8

‘President Ma Ying-jeou’s government often claims that it would never sell out Taiwan. The fact is that it has no right to do so even if it wanted to because Taiwan’s sovereignty does not belong to the ROC.’

Last Thursday was the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Beijing has intensified its propaganda recently, inflating its position to that of a leading world power.

Beijing produced a film called the The Founding of a Republic (建國大業), but that republic is in fact built on 60 years of oppressing its own people. Yet some Taiwanese were proud to be invited to attend China’s national day festivities. This makes them accomplices of a one-party authoritarian state.

By comparison, Taiwanese writer Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has a new book out — Big River, Big Sea — Untold Stories of 1949 (大江大海一 九 四 九). At a time when the victor celebrates its national day, she relates the love and hate of the loser.

We must be careful as people remember the civil war to prevent incorrect historical interpretations.

Although the perspectives of the civil war’s winner and loser differ, they share common ground in that they are both the reflections of Chinese people and their vision for the future.

Certainly, they both want to include Taiwan in their discourse in the hope that the Taiwanese will be fascinated by these historical stories and begin to identify with China. In other words, both the film and the book seek to deconstruct and reconstruct the Taiwanese people’s memory and identity. We should be on guard against this trap and aware of the disaster the Chinese civil war brought to Taiwan. Only in this way can we extract ourselves from the China dilemma and become a normal country.

In 1949, after the devastation of the civil war and the defeat of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the PRC replaced the Republic of China (ROC).

This was essentially a Chinese change of dynasties that had nothing to do with the Taiwanese people.

Unfortunately, four years before this change, when World War II ended in 1945, General Order No. 1 of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (General Douglas McArthur), stated that the Japanese forces in Taiwan should surrender to generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) troops and Taiwan was thus temporarily placed under Chiang’s military control.

After that, the outcome of the Chinese civil war became clear and the ROC government fled to Taiwan, where it began martial law rule with slogans such as “Retrocession of Taiwan” (光復台灣) and “Reconquering the Mainland” (反攻大陸).

The Cold War ensued, with the West attempting to block the expansion of communism, and the Western countries led by the US had no choice but to tacitly agree to the existence of the ROC government in exile.

Despite this, Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which took effect in 1952, clearly states that: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”

In other words, the post-war measures as specified in the international treaty signed by the victorious and defeated nations only state that Japan should give up Taiwan, but did not specify any country as the successor.

In accordance with principles of international law, Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to the Taiwanese people. The PRC’s claim that Taiwan is part of China and the ROC’s claim that Taiwan was returned to it are groundless.

From this perspective, the significance of the 60th anniversary of the PRC’s founding to the Taiwanese people is that Taiwan remains occupied by the ROC to this day. The fact that the ROC does so without having sovereignty over Taiwan is used by the PRC as the reason for claiming that Taiwan is part of China.

After the PRC replaced the ROC in China in 1949, it tried to claim sovereignty over ROC-occupied Taiwan. However, the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC is simply a problem created by World War II that still remains to be resolved. Taiwan is not part of the ROC.

Even if the ROC in Taiwan were to surrender to the PRC someday, Taiwan would still not be part of China.

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government often claims that it would never sell out Taiwan. The fact is that it has no right to do so even if it wanted to because Taiwan’s sovereignty does not belong to the ROC.

Still, the government’s policies indicate its intent to work with Beijing to annex Taiwan.

Thus, the ROC and PRC seem bent on dealing with Taiwan between themselves.

This will be accomplished using military threats and economic and political integration to create a national identity.

By doing this, China can surround Taiwan on all sides as it integrates it.

The governments of both sides of the Taiwan Strait have been pushing for unification lately — offering incentives while quietly brainwashing the public.

Taiwanese must have a clear understanding of history and a firm national identity so as not to fall into a trap they cannot get out of.

Is there any good reason not to let Kadeer in?
　

By Huang Juei-min 黃瑞明
Monday, Oct 05, 2009, Page 8

Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said the government would not allow World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer to visit Taiwan because her organization is closely associated with a terrorist group. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) immediately voiced approval of the decision. That’s how easy it was for the government to rid itself of another hot potato.

But is Kadeer really a terrorist? Ten days before the opening of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games last summer, then-US president George W. Bush received a group of five well-known Chinese dissidents, including Wei Jingsheng (魏京生), at the White House. Kadeer was one of them. At the meeting, Bush reiterated his support for the Uighurs’ pursuit of human rights and democracy. Kadeer said Bush’s decision to receive them at that moment was a strong message to the Chinese government that it must stop suppressing human rights.

In a photo later released by the White House, we saw Bush enthusiastically putting his arm on Kadeer’s right shoulder. Bush was a leader of the fight against terrorism. Would the CIA or FBI have let him meet Kadeer if she were linked to a terrorist group? The fact is that the two had already met in Prague in 2007, at which time he praised her in public as a human rights fighter who was not afraid of a tyrannical government.

Jiang’s statement was a reflection of his ignorance and shamelessness. He not only defamed a human rights activist but also embarrassed the Republic of China. Think about it: If Kadeer cannot visit Taiwan, then Wei would most likely be refused as well. Will everyone who is a thorn in the side to Beijing be prohibited from visiting in the future?

Democracy and freedom are Taiwan’s most precious values. Instead of performing a character assassination on Kadeer, Jiang has seriously damaged the nation’s image and dignity.

It is true that political realities force Taiwan to maintain friendly relations with China. Despite the green camp’s accusing Ma of leaning toward China and selling out Taiwan over the past year, his efforts to improve cross-strait relations are basically correct.

Yet one should not maintain a friendship at all costs and one must not act obsequiously. Taiwanese society respects human rights. Kadeer is a human rights activist worthy of respect. Why should we abuse her — and belittle ourselves?

The Ministry of the Interior is just like the Hong Kong government, which prevents Chinese democracy activists from attending the local memorial events for the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Hong Kong’s decision is understandable, as it is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. Jiang, however, is denigrating himself. He is an academic-turned-politician who has lost his intellectual conscience. He does not shrink from trampling the nation’s founding spirit in order to curry favor with an authoritarian country.

The point of Taiwanese musician Freddy Lim’s (林昶佐) invitation of Kadeer was clear. Regardless of the purpose, however, anyone capable of serving as premier or minister should have the wisdom to abide by certain fundamental principles. This invitation was a test.

What would happen if Kadeer came? I don’t believe Jiang is afraid that Kadeer plans to set up an al-Qaeda cell in Taiwan. He is afraid of upsetting Beijing. But cross-strait reconciliation is in full swing: Would the Chinese Communist Party really freeze this process because of Kadeer?

The government should stop and think: What happened to Taiwan’s national dignity?

Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.