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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS