The nation's first televised election debate on Saturday represented a major advance for our democracy. The format of the debate was important, but even more important was the fact that it provided information on the candidates' campaign platforms, allowing voters to make an informed choice.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Lien said: "Our stance is very clear. The two sides [Taiwan and China] should set aside the issue of sovereignty, increase exchanges and interaction, accelerate economic development and improve the livelihoods of the people. If we must talk about `one China,' then `one China' means the Republic of China."
Lien's plan to set aside sovereignty -- as a basis for cross-strait interaction and increased exchanges -- is dangerous. Sovereignty is a composite concept that includes a country's territory, people, constitution and so on. When a nation sets aside its sovereignty, in even the most innocuous context, it enters a vacuum in which the human rights and property rights of the people as well as the integrity of national territory can be harmed at the very moment other countries raise differing views regarding the country's jurisdiction. A country setting aside sovereignty is equivalent to it announcing its own demise.
Sovereignty must never be set aside. One must be resolute in defending it.
Taiwan must not engage in cross-strait interaction at the expense of its sovereignty. Once it denies its sovereignty, it will in effect have raised a white flag and surrendered. It loses a basis for negotiating with China.
It is utterly reprehensible for Lien to advocate this position. The nation's 23 million people should recognize that Lien's motive for wanting to set aside sovereignty is nothing more than political victory, and that he is perfectly willing to be an agent of capitulation to bring this about.
During the 2000 presidential election, Lien praised former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" dictum as a pragmatic stance compatible with cross-strait political realities. In 2001, however, Lien called for a cross-strait confederation. Last year, Lien returned to the old "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" formula. Now he is saying we should set aside our sovereignty.
During the 2000 election, People First Party Chairman James Soong (
A head of state must defend his or her country's sovereignty. Otherwise, the people of that country risk being bashed to a pulp at the hands of other countries. Taiwan must elect a president who can maintain this country's sovereign status quo, and who will not allow it to be changed for the worse even under the pressure of threats or military posturing. This is the most basic requirement of a national leader, a requirement that Lien seems to scorn, or else barely comprehend.
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