In a free and democratic society where the rule of law prevails, competition between political parties is necessary and normal. However, the premise for such competition should be the interests of the nation and its people. Taiwan's parties should not support the political stances taken by a foreign regime that has publicly vowed to attack their country. Much less should they join hands with such a regime to attack their domestic rivals. Otherwise, a serious problem of national identity confusion will arise, thereby allowing the hostile regime to reap political profits.
What political profits does Beijing hope to reap from Taiwan? Obviously, it wants to change Taiwan's status quo by making it part of the PRC. This is something no one can deny.
What then is Taiwan's status quo? Everyone knows that the democratization of Taiwan's political system began with the lifting of martial law in July 1987. The first ever direct presidential election here was held in 1996, while in 2000 there was the first transition of political power.
In comparison, the Beijing regime has never wanted to practice democracy. It merely wants to thoroughly annihilate a free and democratic Taiwanese social framework where the rule of law prevails -- a society built with the blood and tears of the Taiwanese people -- and replace it with a Communist authoritarian system.
In light of this, it should not be difficult to understand the motive behind the defensive referendum that Taiwan wants to hold. It is meant to call on Beijing to remove the ballistic missiles deployed against Taiwan and not seek to resolve the cross-strait dispute by means of military force. Such a referendum is clearly meant to ensure that Taiwan's status quo won't be changed by the Beijing regime. Creating a new constitution will serve to ensure that Taiwan will continue to deepen its democracy on the basis of the rule of law, and to prevent the emergence of a despotic politician or a military ruler.
However, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has worked to protect Taiwan's democratic status quo, has been painted -- by Washington as well as pro-Beijing politicians -- as a party bent on changing the status quo. Those who want to overturn the status quo have been extolled as its defenders. Isn't this logic a little too ridiculous?
When it comes to the national identity of Taiwan's four major ethnic groups and political parties, what is most important is to identify with the democratic system that the nation is practising. No external regime should be allowed to change that status quo. Referendums are one of the best ways to reflect the will of the entire citizenry in a democratic country.
Only a constitution compatible with the trends of the time can ensure that the nation's democratic system will not deteriorate. Only the DPP's approach, therefore, will truly safeguard Taiwan's free and democratic status and ensure that it won't be changed by external political forces or military threats.
In addition to deploying missiles and threatening Taiwan, Beijing has also harbored Taiwanese fugitives, especially those suspected of economic crimes. It has also blatantly tried to influence Taiwan's presidential elections. It is Beijing that is trying to change the status quo. The people of Taiwan need to see this fact clearly.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS