The response from the pan-blue camp to President Chen Shui-bian's (
The the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance hopes to scare the public into believing that Chen wants to use the new constitution to change the country's name to "Republic of Taiwan."
By creating such fears, the pan-blue camp can stifle discussion about the necessity and legitimacy of a new constitution.
While this may be the most sensible tactic for the pan-blue camp to take ahead of next year's election, a new constitution is key to creating long-lasting peace and stability in Taiwan. The KMT-PFP alliance's argument -- that a new constitution would lead to Taiwanese independence and therefore the risk of war -- is full of coarse predictions and biased mistakes that need clearing up.
First, we shouldn't fight over words. Whether we are amending the Constitution or writing a new one, elements of the current Constitution will remain. Some countries have drawn up constitutions or achieved the same effect by amending the core articles of their original constitution, for example in the Netherlands and Finland. These countries maintained their original national titles after renewing their constitutions.
This shows us that the pan-blue camp's claim that drawing up a new constitution is tantamount to declaring independence or changing the national title is deliberately misleading. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in its 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" confirms that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, and that its name, according to the Constitution, is the Republic of China, there is no need to draw up a new constitution to declare independence for Taiwan.
Second, the question of whether peace in the Taiwan Strait will be maintained is not dependent on the good will of any one side, but rather on the international strategic situation, in particular US attitudes and China's real strength.
In fact, according to China's white paper on Taiwan policy published in 2000, the definition of Taiwanese independence doesn't end at "changing the national title" but includes "indefinitely postponing talks about peaceful unification."
Therefore, the blue camp's promotion of "one China" and the exclusion of the public's right to change the national flag or the national title via a referendum does nothing to protect Taiwan's sovereignty and leaves the country vulnerable to China's traps in the international arena.
If China continues to persist in its "one country, two systems" strategic goal, and Taiwan keeps blindly restricting itself, Taiwan will eventually be peacefully swallowed up by China.
Finally, a new constitution would lead to a deepening of democracy that can reform and protect Taiwan. Taiwan's Constitution is full of contradictions and compromises.
A new constitution could lay the foundations for a peaceful and stable constitutional system, improve the quality of democratic politics and national competitiveness, and allow Taiwan to join the ranks of normal, complete and mighty nations. This is the only undertaking that will protect the existence and development of Taiwan.
In the midst of intense campaigning, I'm not sure whether the pan-blue camp will agree that only those who fight for long-term goals instead of temporary gains will in the end be able to pass the test of history.
Yu Mei-mei is executive secretary of the DPP Strategy and Discussion Group.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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