From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Language policy (Re: Unification)
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:49:09 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Jul23.210811.19420@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> tsai@tecrus.enet.dec.com (Kuo-Yeang Tsai) writes:
>However, Taiwan, during the past 4 decades, has gone through so much 
>twisted values injection and it needs time to right the wrongs, undo the 
>distortion, and demystify the myths. I believe it is not the right time to
>promulgate the idea of unification

Actually, I see myself as part of the "demystifying" process.  If you
look at my ideas on unification, you can see that they are quite
unlike anything that the CCP mentions and they are also quite
different from "traditional" KMT.  In fact, if I had publicly stated
the ideas that I am stating now, in Taiwan in the early-1970's, I
think that I would be in serious danger of being convicted under
Article 100.

The problem with "traditional unification" is that it puts so much
attention on government and neglects other sectors of society, such as
culture and economics.  The reason for this is that in the early
twentieth century, Chinese people put all of their hopes regarding
modernization on a grand and wonderful government that will save
China.  Hence the "myths" which developed put much too much focus on
government.

Both Mainlanders and Taiwanese have learned from sad experience that
governments are sometimes more of a problem than a solution.
Governments may be a good tool, but they are not "saviors."  We must
"save" ourselves, and all we need is a government that will not stop
us from doing this.  I think it's only in the past ten to fifteen
years that Chinese on both sides of the straits have really realize
this.

The "new unification" ideas which I'm presenting are meant to shift
the idea of "unification" away from government and toward other
sectors of societies such as economy and culture.  I personally think
that it would be more productive to shift our thinking away from the
ideas of "unified government" and more toward the ideas of "unified
society", "unified culture", and "unified identity."

Certainly government is an important influence on such things, but we
should remember that government is secondary, and society is primary.

>albeit you have the right and legitimate
>reasons to do so now. Taiwan needs to be let alone for a period of time to
>develop its democratic system and culture. 

I agree that as far as politics goes, Taiwan needs some time to let
things stabilize.  It's only been democratic for about two to three
years, and Taiwan does need some time to form "democratic habits."

In any case, it is very unwise to advocate any major changes in
politics before 1997, when Hong Kong returns to the PRC.  We need to
see what happens before we can decide what happens next.  

If the return of Hong Kong works very well, then we can talk about the
idea of "one country, two systems" as a model for unification.  If the
return of Hong Kong goes badly, then we will have to develop other
models of unification.

>If you can spend 
>your efforts on China and the Chinese people in helping them develop their 
>economy and democratic system, that will be much more productive and progmatic
>than convincing the Taiwanese people. 

In my arguments with TIers, I'm also talking to "unificationists" on
both sides of the straits.  One of my points is that "unification" is
not incompatible with "two Chinas."

As far as convincing people, one important thing to note is that
Mainlanders and now Taiwanese are now one audience.  It's impossible
to say one thing to one group of people without the other group
overhearing.  Even if I wanted to, it would be difficult to speak only
to Mainlanders or only to Taiwanese. 

My main point in all of this exchange is to point out that we are all
better off if we think less in terms of "us and them" and more in
terms of "we the heirs of Chinese civilization."  That I think is the
essence of unification.

>Assume that unity is good, yet can unity be achieved only by uniformity?

The most important thing that will achieve unification is
communication and exchange. 

If nothing else, the "Taiwan language policy" topic has shown that
"enforced uniformity" achieves not unity but disunity.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.china