The two main candidates in next year's presidential election -- President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) -- have agreed to hold a debate on the issues of referendums and a new constitution. This is a ray of sunshine amidst today's negative campaigning. Finally, candidates can put negative campaigning aside and debate their visions for the nation's future.
Voters have lost their appetites recently because of quarrels in the media, the groundless criticisms that fly between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and the dispute over the controversial Special Report VCDs. But Chen and Lien are now bringing the campaign back on track. Constitutional reform, referendums, and cross-strait relations are the topics that people really want to hear the candidates talk about. We hope that the debate will set a high standard for the presidential election campaign.
Although a great ideological divide separates the blue and green camps, their opinions on the constitution issue have converged. Lien's first reaction was to call the idea of a new constitution "Boring!" Later he suggested that a constitutional amendment committee be set up following the election. Recently he proposed a three-step plan for a new constitution.
In form, Lien's current proposal is a copy of the DPP's longstanding call for a new constitution, but it differs in its spirit. This may cause public confusion about the blue and green camps' constitutional proposals. A debate between Chen and Lien might allow the public to clearly see the two proposals' advantages and disadvantages.
The DPP emphasizes a democratic process for constitutional changes. It favors a bottom-up approach without any conditions, and adheres to the principle that the decision should be made by the people in a referendum. Issues such as the nation's name, flag and borders would have to be resolved separately.
The KMT, on the other hand, has allowed a core group of policymakers to decide that a new constitution could not touch on the issue of the nation's name and flag.
The KMT has also proposed a faster schedule than has the DPP, but the KMT wants to amend the Constitution through the Legislative Yuan, elect members to an extraordinary National Assembly to add provisions for a referendum on the Constitution, and use the referendum procedures in the amended Constitution to complete the process. Such a process would be too complicated and would contain too many variables.
Taiwan's political problems -- past, present and future -- boil down to the China problem. Sooner or later, the Constitution must clearly differentiate Taiwan from China.
Chen and Lien both say that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Chen describes Taiwan and China as being "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, while Lien says they belong to one China -- the Republic of China (ROC).
Although Lien's statement is consistent with the KMT's China policy, he must explain why there is only one China when both the PRC and the ROC are sovereign states. Most nations in the world have recognized the PRC for half a century, but Lien now wants to persuade them that there is no PRC, but only the ROC. This is wishful thinking, and it runs counter to international understanding of the situation.
We hope that Lien will be able to present an effective argument to persuade not only the Taiwanese people but also China and the international community that they ought to accept his one China theory.
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