Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have a long, entangled history. Talks between them are not harmful if the public's rights are not involved.
However, since Beijing insists that "one China" refers to the People's Republic of China (PRC), neither Lien's nor Soong's visit will benefit Taiwan's pursuit of a recognition of two equal, sovereign nations on both sides of the Strait, nor the establishment of real peace. If they are careless, they may trigger internal conflict and polarize opinion between pro-unification and pro-independence forces. While Lien is visiting China, we would like to remind him:
First, following Japanese colonial rule, although the people of Taiwan suffered under the KMT government's martial law for 38 years, they took advantage of the limited freedom available to them to strive for democracy, and accomplished the first transfer of power in 2000. The KMT itself witnessed this process of Taiwan's democratization. Although it was defeated in presidential elections, it should keep its faith in our own democratic system, and should not denounce our democratic achievements when meeting political leaders from the other side.
If Lien can take this opportunity to declare to Beijing the party's recognition of democratic values, and explain that even after its transformation from the governing to the opposition party, the KMT is still able to win many legislative seats and participate in national affairs, this will show the party's magnitude and vision, and win the world's applause.
Second, the former KMT government failed to end the military confrontation between the two sides of the Strait. As an opposition party today, it has no position to represent Taiwan in signing an "agreement for terminating the state of war." The civil war between the KMT and the CCP naturally came to an end when power was transferred peacefully to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) from the KMT, and it is not necessary to sign any agreement. The DPP has never declared the CCP to be a rebellious group. Even if the DPP government has taken over the KMT government's baggage of the "separate governance of the two sides," this does not mean that it should automatically continue the hatred between the KMT and the CCP.
During his visit, Lien should express at an appropriate time that the KMT-CCP civil war became history when the party lost power. This method can easily resolve the problem in Article 8 of the "Anti-Secession" Law, which states that "The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s. Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair."
Third, following several visits to China by high-ranking officials of the KMT, Soong has also accepted an invitation from Hu for a similar trip. These "go-west" moves have caused a disturbance in Taiwan's party politics and further complicated the government's cross-strait policies. If the opposition loses sight of the fact that their survival and development must be rooted in Taiwan and if their China visits fall into China's "united front" trap, they will be upbraided for being traitors and for "selling out Taiwan." In the end they would regret this as an unwise move and a costly political bid.
Fourth, if "one China under the Constitution" means that the legitimacy of Taiwan's government is based on the Constitution of the Republic of China, this is simply a description of fact. If Lien and Soong's view of the so called "1992 consensus" is "one China, with each side having its own interpretation," "one China" for Taiwan is the Republic of China. Lien and Soong, being politicians, must follow their principles and keep their word.
They must keep in mind their status as the leaders of Taiwan's opposition parties when holding dialogues with Hu, and must not make any concessions when speaking about Taiwan's sovereignty. Otherwise, the nature of their visits to China will be seen by the public as being for the benefit of themselves and their political parties, without giving any thought to Taiwan's sovereignty.
Fifth, a poll conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank on April 24 revealed that more than 70 percent of people think that without the government's authorization, Lien's China visit is inappropriate. Almost 64 percent of people consider the character of Lien's China visit as "individual and civic," and not pertaining to public authority.
Politicians must understand that in order to deal with cross-strait relations, they must keep a tight grip on the democratic process and legal principles. In other words, any agreement reached between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must go through the democratic process to win support from the people of Taiwan in a manner consistent with the law.
In sum, for both the "Hu-Lien meeting" and the "Hu-Soong meeting," the security and interests of Taiwan's people should be valued above the interests of individual political parties. They must not let Hu do as he pleases; otherwise, they will be unable to create a better cross-strait situation and could take an irreversible step toward political disaster.
Discussing cross-strait issues with China's government is a complicated, almost impossible mission. Politicians must not engage in wishful thinking and use cross-strait issues as a tool for their domestic maneuvering. If Lien and Soong truly love Taiwan, we urge them to listen to us. And upon their return, they must begin to encourage their parties to engage seriously in unfinished legislative business.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND LIN YA-TI
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS