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 muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS