It's hard to understand the logic and attitudes behind the argument that this nation's passports should only bear the words "Republic of China" (ROC) but not "Taiwan." It is beyond doubt that people living in Taiwan are different from those living in the PRC.
If the legislature or the opposition parties continue to claim that the ROC's territory includes China, this will certainly be an international joke. If they are really following the doctrine of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Many Taiwanese traveling abroad have been mistaken for PRC citizens when they show their ROC passports. The government certainly needs to print the word "Taiwan" on passports in order to prevent such confusion, as well as the unnecessary trouble that ensues. This is also what the international community expects. Why should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continue to hesitate over the matter?
The fact that some ministry officials continue to drag their feet on the matter reflects the fears they are harboring toward independence. They fear that by putting "Taiwan" on the passports they may be replacing "ROC" with "Taiwan" as the name of the country, and cause Taiwan to become "independent." Beijing may react strongly to this by sending out its military forces to attack Taiwan or its outlying islands. Is it going to be that serious? The government has the responsibility to make its citizens clearly distinguishable from PRC citizens in the eyes of the international community, and the passport is a good official instrument for doing this. Fears about a possible Chinese attack over this are far-fetched.
Remember the missile crisis of March 1996? Taiwan got through the incident intact, didn't it? So why worry so much about Beijing's response? The government should do what it must to safeguard the interests of its people, even if that means military risks. It can't take its cues from Beijing.
Beijing has never given up its authoritarian habits. It has never been willing to face up to reality. Decisions are always made by a handful of top cadres who have no concern whatsoever for the fact that sovereign power rests in the hands of the people. For Taiwan to try to communicate with them would be like trying to entertain an ox with a harp. Beijing's recent actions at the World Health Organization and the WTO show that Beijing has always viewed Taiwan as an enemy. It has invariably opposed anything that benefits Taiwan. So why should we care about the likes and dislikes of Beijing?
On the other hand, didn't the KMT advocate Taiwan as an independent sovereign state when it was in power? How come it has begun to echo the PFP's "one China" dictum since losing power? Does the KMT think it is worthwhile to pressure the government to accept the "one country, two systems" model just to win back power? Hasn't anyone learned a lesson from Hong Kong's painful experience?
The government should implement policies that are supported by public opinion. Surveys conducted by the foreign ministry show that more than 50 percent of the public supports putting the word "Taiwan" on the nation's passports. There's no reason for the government to keep wringing its hands over this issue. It should show some determination and do what is right for the people of this nation.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS