The Cabinet has amended the Enforcement Rules of the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例施行細則). The amendment means that Mongolia is no longer seen as part of the mainland area, that visas for visiting Mongolians shall be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and that, if the need arises, a representative office shall be established in Mongolia.
I have been involved in cross-strait, Mongolian and Tibetan affairs for many years and I am of the opinion that this "de-sinicization" move creates a constitutional dispute regarding the scope of our nation's territory. It is unnecessary and brings no real benefits to our country.
Article 4 of the ROC Constitution states: "The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries ..." Since the beginning of the last century, Mongolia has been both included and excluded from Chinese territory and therefore, some disputes exist as to whether it is included within "existing national boundaries."
However, if we take a closer look at Article 26, Section 2 of the Constitution, dealing with the election of representatives to the National Assembly, and Article 64, Section 2 dealing with the election of legislators, both clearly state the number of representatives to be elected from each Mongolian league and banner (Mongolian administrative units, equivalent to counties and cities). Adding to this that Mongolia sent representatives to participate in the creation of the Constitution, there is no doubt that Mongolia is part of ROC territory.
The only problem is that our jurisdiction does not extend to Mongolia now. Since this is the case, the MOFA statement that visas shall be issued in the same way as to other foreigners and that the ministry plans to open up a representative office in Mongolia, are actually unconstitutional.
Next, let's talk about necessity. The Cabinet reportedly amended the law in order to facilitate Mongolian visits to Taiwan. In reality, however, only about 100-200 Mongolians come to Taiwan each year. Whether they are individual visitors or part of groups, they can all easily visit Taiwan.
While assisting Taiwanese businesspeople to invest in Mongolia -- creating an annual average of about US$3 million in mutual trade -- the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission has also, for the last few years, arranged business management training programs in Taiwan for Mongolian government and industry officials. These people maintain contact with Taiwan, which proves that bilateral exchanges are very easy. Since Mongolian authorities are concerned over Chinese pressure, top-level government officials have never visited Taiwan. Even if we now unilaterally change our ways, high-level Mongolian officials will still not visit. Therefore, there really is no need to amend the law.
In fact, due to China's watchfulness, there is almost no chance of establishing diplomatic relations with Mongolia and there is therefore no immediate urgency to amend the law. What's more, it will be difficult to avoid disputes over the definition of the scope of territorial boundaries arising out of this amendment, as it involves interpretation of the Constitution and the controversy regarding unification or independence. This is a fundamental, major political issue and even the Council of Grand Justices in their Constitutional Interpretation No. 328 points out: "The definition of `existing national boundaries' is a major political issue, and should not be interpreted by the interpretation mechanisms of administrative judicial courts."
Looking at the issue from an administrative perspective, this amendment should be proposed by the relevant authority, which is the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission. The amendment, however, has been proposed by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). It could certainly be debated whether this is a proper way of handling this issue.
What's more, a series of de-sinicization moves with highly political significance have taken place since President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) took office -- such as the General Information Office removing the map of China from its emblem, MOFA's adding the word "Taiwan" to ROC pass-ports, the plans to change the name of our unofficial overseas representative offices and turning the highly-politicized MAC into a law-amending authority.
Do we really have to touch the politically-sensitive sovereignty issue at a critical juncture in cross-strait relations which have been in a stalemate for several years? I think that the authorities have to consider this issue very carefully.
What do we gain by playing this card? Will the other party support us in international and diplomatic matters? Can they offer us any economic benefits? I'm afraid the answer to these questions is "no." Not only that, we have over many years provided Mongolia with assistance, including official food aid and disaster relief and medical and humanitarian aid funneled through non-government organizations. These donations have not, however, been met by official acceptance from authorities. Why, then, should we compromise without gaining any benefits in exchange?
If the Cabinet disguises major political actions as administrative measures in order to win political favor and give the public a feeling of change, but instead incites a dispute over constitutionality and sacrifices the cross-strait relationship, I'm afraid it's not worth it.
Kao Koong-lian is a former chairman of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, and a former first vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused