It is amazing how a historian like Sin-ming Shaw (邵新民) can display such massive ignorance about Taiwan in such a short article (“Chen’s fate should act as a lesson,” Sept. 17, page 8). His comments on the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) reveal his incompetence and the worst prejudice toward Taiwan.
By Michael Danielsen, Chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Published in Taipei Times on Wednesday, Sep 23, 2009.
It is amazing how a historian like Sin-ming Shaw (邵新民) can display such massive ignorance about Taiwan in such a short article (“Chen’s fate should act as a lesson,” Sept. 17, page 8). His comments on the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) reveal his incompetence and the worst prejudice toward Taiwan.
This is unfortunate for him, and for the readers whom he misinformed.
Shaw starts out by stating incorrectly that Chen received life imprisonment for corruption, when in fact he received a life sentence for the embezzlement of presidential funds. The rules guiding these funds are vague, a situation recognized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which is now proposing to decriminalize the use of similar funds at lower political levels.
CRITICISM
The entire trial has received massive international criticism. But by failing to mention any of it, Shaw gives the impression that Taiwan has a perfect legal system. It is easy to list problems with the trial, from judges being replaced under unusual circumstances to details of the investigation being leaked to partisan media outlets to the state eavesdropping on Chen in custody.
Shaw also expresses an aversion toward identity politics. Chen stood for a clear policy on identity — one that focused on Taiwan. This policy is supported by the vast majority of Taiwanese. More than 50 percent of the population consider themselves to be unambiguously Taiwanese, while only 5 percent to 6 percent think of themselves as Chinese.
Chen’s policy was not about eliminating Chinese culture, as Shaw states, but simply reflected the reality in his country. Taiwanese have clearly become more “Taiwanese.”
This tendency became obvious in the process of democratization following an era of dictatorship that imposed Chinese culture on Taiwan. It is worth noting that an increase in Taiwanese identity was already apparent four years before Chen became president.
Shaw inexcusably compares Chen’s policies to China’s Cultural Revolution and claims that he performed a “vicious” campaign against Mainlanders.
Chen in fact used the appeasing expression huaren (華人) to describe Taiwanese, which embraces all as having Chinese ethnicity, and thus all Taiwanese, regardless of background.
The late authoritarian president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) is glorified in Shaw’s article as the creator of Taiwan’s democracy, which offensively conceals opposition to the dictatorship by Taiwanese, as well as their role in the fall of the party-state and democratic reforms.
RECORD HIGH
On economic matters, Shaw accuses Chen of mismanagement. Yet six years into Chen’s presidency, Taiwanese investment in China reached a record high, while Taiwan experienced a 230 percent increase in foreign investment.
In addition, the government invested in the nation’s knowledge economy and the expansion of universities. Comparing China’s booming economy with Taiwan’s more mature economy is like comparing apples and oranges.
Shaw believes that Chen did not defend Taiwan. However, Chen did defend Taiwan in various ways, including sending signals to China that resemble President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies.
The list of Shaw’s errors and manipulations is longer than this. It is surprising that such an educated person does not know better and that he would write comments that expose him as unreliable.
