Fortunately, PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien (高明見) did not make a speech at this week's SARS conference in Kuala Lumpur. Otherwise, international disputes would have followed.
Kao is a doctor at National Taiwan University Hospital and a PFP legislator-at-large. At the SARS conference, he might as well have been considered China's representative because he was one of the people on Beijing's list of recommended participants. The way Kao participated in the World Health Organization (WHO) forum has allowed all of us to sense the true meaning of PFP Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) promise that Taiwan will join the WHO within two years if he gets elected next year.
All the problems will go away if Taiwan agrees to become a province of China. We have been enlightened on this issue, thanks to the PFP's reminder. Why couldn't the government and the Department of Health think of such an easy way instead of taking such great pains to fight to the bitter end? The Kao model embodies capitulation, or the PFP's cross-strait policy under the "one-China roof." There would not be any problems if only we would capitulate to China.
Kao's participation in the conference has become the focus of attention because he was not a member of Taiwan's delegation. The official delegation consisted of Center for Disease Control Director Su Ih-jen (蘇益仁), Academia Sinica researcher Ho Mei-hsiang and Chang Shang-chwen (張上淳) and Chen Pei-jer (陳培哲), both doctors at National Taiwan University Hospital.
Next, Beijing said all of Taiwan's invitations were forwarded by China. Beijing did forward the invitations, but Taiwan refused to accept them and protested to the WHO. The WHO then sent separate invitations by e-mail to Taiwan's four delegates. This is why Kao's invitation and name tag differed from Su's. This difference is where a country's dignity and strength of character lie.
We don't know if the PFP just does not know the real story or is trying to obscure the facts, but the PFP took the copies of the invitations rejected by the Department of Health to argue that these invitations are the same as Kao's. This is a clear attempt to shift the focus of blame off Kao.
Political figures should be able to make sound judgements. China must have notified Kao before making a recommendation to the WHO and Kao must have agreed to Beijing's recommendation. This was Kao's first mistake. When government officials and the delegation protested the name problem to the WHO, Kao made a second mistake because he tacitly acknowledged his status as China's representative. Then when there was an uproar back home over his participation, Kao not only failed to admit his mistakes but also attempted to blame the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council. Such political mistakes are almost intolerable.
The fact that Kao represented China suggests that the PFP acknowledges Kao as the regional representative of China's Taiwan Province. Kao's trip is the PFP's China policy put into practice. Perhaps Soong still has illusions about the Republic of China governing all of China in 1947 and thought that Kao therefore could represent China at large.
In politics Kao is like a frog, an amphibian which thinks it can gain advantage from both sides but in the end gets exactly the opposite. Terrestrial animals do not see frogs as terrestrial animals and aquatic creatures do not see frogs as one of them. This nation did not acknowledge Kao as its representative and Beijing is unable to let Kao speak on behalf of China. Even the PFP said Kao did not represent it.
Kao may have thought that he could do whatever he wanted on either side of the Taiwan Strait, but he was wrong.
Vincent Lin is the deputy editor-in-chief of the Taipei Times.
Translated by Grace Shaw
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