What does it matter to the people of Seychelles today, in the middle of so much tribulations, economic uncertainties and relative chaos as well as a rising cost of living to name but a few, if a political party should support the so-called one-china state or not? It appears that a matter that is only important to the politicians of China and Taiwan has become the spark that caused a friction between the Democratic Party and the Seychelles National Party.This newspaper carried a letter last week signed “an opposition supporter” in which the writer claimed surprised that I supported the one-china state policy “without any consideration for Taiwan, which has been developing a democratic society since 1949”. The writer also went on to ask if I was speaking for the Democratic Party or for myself. The SNP leader, Mr Ramkalawan even made reference to this letter in the defence of his decision to break the so-called Alliance.
Firstly, as leader I am the only one who speaks for the Democratic Party. All others speak for themselves or on my behalf if I had delegated such responsibility. But that does not stop anyone in the party from agreeing or disagreeing with me or the party. When I made the statement reported by this newspaper, I was not expressing an opinion but stating a policy of the Democratic Party which is that we recognise the one party-state principle in respect of the China-Taiwan issue. This position incidentally, is the same as that of the governments of the USA, Great Britain, and the European Union etc. In fact there are very few countries in the world that do not support this principle. Indeed, until 1972 it was Taiwan that represented China in the UN Security Council. They lost that privilege when the US, Britain and France changed their support to the government in Beijing that same year. The debate initiated by a member of the National Assembly from the SPPF was a red herring to distract the public’s attention from the real issues occupying the people of Seychelles – the mess the SPPF the has made of the economy, and we blindly fell into the trap.
No one knows the China-Taiwan issue more than me. I have visited Taiwan more than 10 times since 1984. I have met and held discussions at the highest levels of government during some of my visits. Until December 1991, I could only travel on a refugee passport issued to me by the British Government. While I could travel to Taiwan with it, I could not go to China. I have paid visits to Beijing since, however and have had discussions with officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a member of the legislature of Seychelles. I’ve also had the opportunity of discussing the issue with two representatives of the then opposition party in Taiwan, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), who visited Seychelles in 1996 and I was part of a DP delegation that went to Taipei to talk to PPP leaders before they came to power. I still have friends occupying high positions in Taiwan as government servants or as diplomats.
The Democratic Party shares the same ideological platform as the Kuomintang Party (KMT) which was the government in Chen Shui-bian became the new president. Both the DP and the KMT belong to the International Democrat Union which also has as members, among others, the Republican Party of USA led by George Bush, the Conservative Party of Great Britain as well as the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP) of France whose leader is President Nicolas Sarkozy.
party state. Democracy did not come to
The reality, however, is much more complex. It is estimated that Taiwanese businesses have invested up to US$ 100 billion in , Ma Ying-jeou, is expected to win.
How did the China-Taiwan question come to divide the opposition in Seychelles at a time when the majority party is on the economic ropes, and at the instigation of the SPPF at that? I tend to think the issue is but a lame excuse.
By Paul Chow