Taiwan Advocates has held a series of forums on the creation of a new constitution and the recognition of Taiwan. Mean-while, the organizer of the hand-in-hand rally is warming up for the activity. On Feb. 16, academics and experts presented a petition with more than 1,000 signatures to show their support for the referendum.
As the presidential election approaches, these three events can be interpreted from two points of view. First, from the "election strategy" point of view, they can be viewed as the green camp's campaign to support President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Second, from the "public sphere" point of view, they can be seen as a mobilization effort aimed at strengthening Taiwan's self-awareness and national identity.
It is abnormal for a country to depend on civil groups and academics to develop its identity. These activities have highlighted our distorted and chaotic national image. Since these activities and the election campaign are taking place at same time, they may be seen as campaign rallies.
A new constitution and the referendum issues were first proposed during the martial-law era, and have been repeatedly discussed. They were not proposed just for this campaign. The meaning behind them is to normalize the nation through referendums and a new constitution, as well as to make the nation's image clearer. They are public issues related to the nation's future and cannot be dismissed as matters of party interest or strategy.
The pan-blue camp's frequent portrayal of the referendum as a symbol of war has its blind spots. There is a certain logic to the idea that holding a referendum may trigger war: China opposes Tai-wan holding referendums, period. If Taiwan holds a referendum, it will inevitably anger China and cause war and crises. But this assumption is questionable. If China attacks Taiwan when the nation holds a referendum, Bei-jing will prove it is an irrational and warlike regime that does not value democracy.
If that is the case, the Tai-wanese people should consider more seriously: should we really allow such a regime to rule Tai-wan? Should we sacrifice our most basic human rights in exchange for peace? Or should we stand on the side of democracy and human rights, saying "no" to China's threats and "yes" to democracy? The answers are obvious.
This also applies to the referendum issue. The crafting of a constitution is related to the smooth operations of a country's constitutional system. It's not about the rise and fall of a party. Today, what the nation needs is a reasonable constitution that functions well, and there is an agreement between the ruling and opposition camps that the Constitution of the Republic of China is not suited to the current situation. That being so, it's not only necessary but also urgent to draw up a whole new constitution in accordance with the nation's political development, status quo, territory and population.
After six amendments, the Constitution tallies with neither political fact nor national needs. The Constitution will be meaningless if we dare not establish a new one due to Beijing's opposition. The PRC's Constitution is all we need if we have to live under China's rule. Is this really what the Taiwanese people want?
Constitutional creation can normalize Taiwan's politics; referendums can ensure that the democratic mechanism remains in our hands. It's the people's right and responsibility to build Taiwan into a normal and complete country through referendums and creating a new constitution.
This is a critical moment in history that none of us should run away from.
Xiang Yang is an associate professor in the department of language and communication of indigenous people at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry