PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien's (
Kao has come under such strong pressure from public opinion as well as opprobrium from the DPP and the TSU for good reason. He was not a member of the Taiwanese delegation and his name was listed by Beijing as a representative of the PRC's"Taiwan Province." As a legislator , Kao should have been more politically astute. After all, the nation's sovereignty status is an important matter at international conferences.
Kao should have lodged a complaint the day he arrived in Kuala Lumpur against Beijing's attempts to twist his representative status and to humiliate Taiwan. He should have demanded a correction from Beijing from the start, instead of waiting until the furor back home had spun out of control. Instead Kao lodged a complaint with Chinese officials at the end of the conference, when it was way too late. Beijing had achieved its goal of creating the impression that Taiwan is part of China and Kao's protest became just a minor interlude in the international event.
Regardless of whether Kao really attended the WHO conference at China's invitation, anyone can see that Beijing was trying to use PFP members as pawns in its propaganda campaign and he was the latest dupe. Beijing took advantage of the PFP's friendly attitude toward it. Kao, a neurosurgeon, only entered politics when he accepted the PFP's offer of the legislator at-large seat. So elated by an invitation to the conference, Kao apparently did not notice that he was entering Beijing's trap. Others might argue that he has been conniving with Beijing all along.
It is unfortunate that the incident has ignited another furor over independence versus unification because it will only sharpen the ethnic conflict in society in the run-up to next year's election. People already associate the PFP with "selling out Taiwan," thanks to remarks by PFP Chairman James Soong (
After all, Soong has said he would bring Taiwan into the WHO within two years if the KMT-PFP tickets wins the presidential election next March. He has also stressed time and again that the joint ticket would accept a "one China" policy. As usual, Soong has yet to explain in detail just how he plans to execute this diplomatic breakthrough in the WHO. By failing to give an explanation, Soong has inevitably allowed all kinds of speculation that are detrimental to him, as well as fears that he may accept China's "one country, two systems" and turn Taiwan into a local government of China on a par with Hong Kong and Macau. He has done little to dispel such worries.
The furor has driven home one lesson for the nation's political parties and politicians -- they must always be alert and never underestimate Beijing's machinations. The PFP should especially take note of this.
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