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
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