September 22, 2007
Dear Editor,
When I read Martin Willison's editorial entitled
"More to Taiwan separation issue than meets the eye of
editorialist", my brain did not go through the struggle Willison
did. Both sides of my brain told me to respond immediately to
Willison erroneous interpretation of the political situation in
Taiwan no matter how small the reading audience might be.
First, while Willison criticizes the Chronicle Herald
for comparing the Taiwan-China situation to that of the invasion of
Hungry by Russia, he is incorrect; equally spurious is his
comparison of Taiwan with the Province of Quebec. What Willison
fails to recognize is that Taiwan has never been a part of the
People's Republic of China, unlike Quebec, which is a province of
Canada. Canadians can travel freely to Quebec. There aren't any
border check points nor do Canadians have to apply for special
permission, or a visa to go to Quebec. Foreign citizens can enter
Quebec with a visa issued by the Canadian government. Moreover,
when a Canadian marries a Quebecois, he/she does not have to apply
for a spousal visa in order to reside in Quebec. None of this is
true when it comes to Taiwan and China.
In addition, Willison's article suffers from the same
one-sidedness as his own criticism of the Herald's editorial.
Willison wrote under the assumption that Taiwan is a province of
China whereas the current situation of Taiwan demonstrates
otherwise. The article is filled with labels China has given Taiwan
in its attempt to establish false claim over the island, for
example, "Separatist" and "Province". If Willison examines the
Cairo Declaration or even the Shanghai Communiqué, he would find
that none of the historical documents established or supported
communist China's claim over Taiwan. The claim over Taiwan and the
Pescadores was released by Japan after Japan was defeated in World
War II.
Moreover, Willison never clearly identify the
political parties he mentioned in his article. I am confused by his
statement that three of the opposition parties in Taiwan are
pro-unification and that only DPP of the four main political parties
in Taiwan is "separatist". Taiwan has four major political parties,
the DPP, the TSU, the KMT and the PFP. Both DPP and the TSU are
"pro-independence", which means both parties support Taiwan's status
as an independent nation-state. It is very important for an
academic to get the facts correct before making the allegation that
the DPP platform represents only the minority.
What I find most appalling was at the end of
Willison's article when he taunted the editors of the Chronicle
Herald to "give a thought to what the people of mainland China think
regarding the province of Taiwan" as if the opinions of Chinese
citizens hold any credence when it comes to the Taiwanese
determining the future of their own country. The ironclad fact is,
the people of China cannot vote in any election or on any referendum
in Taiwan, because Taiwan operates like an independent state
separate from China as it has always been. Leave the Taiwanese
alone. Let the citizens of Taiwan determine their own future and
stop meddling with the island's hard-earned democracy and freedom.
Ketty W. Chen
is a PhD candidate, department of political science,
University of Oklahoma
Editor's note: Ketty's letter was
later picked up by the Central News Agency, a Taiwanese news wire
service. Please see below.
台灣留學生投書：讓台灣人民決定自己命運
（中央社記者吳顯光渥太華二十五日專電）台灣留學生陳凱蒂（譯音，Ketty
W. Chen）日前投書加拿大東岸「前鋒紀事報」，反駁目前旅居中國的加拿大籍教授威
爾森的另一篇投書。陳凱蒂認為威爾森對台灣政情作了錯誤解釋，她認為應該讓台灣人民決定自己的命運。
威爾森教授在投書中表示，根據他住在中國，與中國人民親身接觸的經驗，無論共產黨員、反共人士或是無政治立場人士皆認為台灣一直是中國的一部份，自古迄今皆然。而且多數國家皆認為台灣獨立對中國內部民主進展將無所助益，因此僅有極少數的聯合國會員國支持台灣成為會員。
目前為美國奧克拉荷馬大學政治學博士候選人的台灣留學生陳凱蒂在閱讀威爾森教授的投書後，決定對他錯誤的解釋台灣政情予以回應。
陳凱蒂指出，威爾森受制於一偏之見，他認為台灣是中國的一省，但台灣現況並非如此，他的文章充斥錯誤的論點，如「分離份子」、「省」等。如果威爾森教授仔細檢閱「開羅宣言」，甚至「上海公報」，就會發現沒有任何歷史文件支持共產中國對台灣的主權主張。
陳凱蒂表示，威爾森教授還認為處理兩岸問題要考慮中國大陸人民的想法，但是當台灣人民決定自己國家命運時，中國人民又有何資格表達意見？台灣的任何選舉和公投，中國人民皆無法參與，因為台灣是跟中國分離的獨立國家。
陳凱蒂呼籲，讓台灣人民決定自己的命運，不要再干預這個島國辛苦贏得的民主和自由吧。
