On the eve of the last typhoon the Legislative Yuan passed four major constitutional amendment bills, including a reduction of the number of seats in the legislature, the establishment of the single member district, two-vote system, the abolition of the National Assembly and the inclusion of the referendum into the Constitution.
Irrespective of how this was actually achieved, these bills were passed with the support of all major parties. Although the jubilation of some was tempered by the disappointment of others, the most important thing here is for the government to make clear to the international community -- and especially China -- the international significance of these amendments.
By "international significance," I am referring in particular to the process of constitutional reform and the inclusion of the referendum. Key here is the possibility that the amendments are surreptitiously paving the way for a legal basis for Taiwanese independence.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (
In fact, they made no mention of what exactly Taiwan had done to prompt their remarks. It does seem that it had little to do with what they have actually observed, and more to do with pressure from China, which accuses Taiwan of seeking independence. This pressure merely serves to increase tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
There is probably no better example of this than the speech given by Wang Zaixi (
He went on to say that on the surface, the "authorities" of Taiwan have recently been less vocal in promoting independence and separation from China, and have been less blatant in their actions. They have, however, allowed Lee Teng-hui (
He said that recently, the Taiwanese "authorities" -- disregarding the tide of public sentiment -- have insisted on major acquisitions of advanced weapons from the US and continued their so-called pragmatic diplomacy. Despite the rhetoric, there is still no clear indication of what actually constitutes maneuvering into a position of creating a legal basis for independence.
Nevertheless, there is a need for the international community to have a better understanding of these constitutional amendment bills. The Beijing-based China News Service has already published an article saying that despite their compromise on the issue of giving the people more say in constitutional reform, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was able to make the holding of referenda constitutional, something that they have been seeking ever since the party was established.
The article continued to say that if the DPP is able to increase its control of the legislature, they will be able to pass further constitutional reforms, thus winning back the people's right to initiate reform. But due to the fact that referendums are now constitutional, they will also be able to instigate a referendum on altering the status quo on territorial issues, or even the name of Taiwan itself. This, they said, is an extremely dangerous development.
However, motions related to territorial issues or constitutional reform would first require a quarter of the total amount of legislators to raise the motion, three quarters of them to vote, and for three quarters of those who participate in the vote to support the resolution. Then, the referendum would still need support from 50 percent of the electorate in order to pass.
Given these restrictions, the pan-greens have no chance of making any changes to definitions of territory or to the name of the country, unless they are able to secure the support of 75 percent of the legislature and the agreement of half the voters in a national referendum.
For all intents and purposes the chance of this happening is quite low. So how could this be considered an "extremely dangerous development?" What's more, these last amendments were put forward by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Are they really suggesting that the KMT are helping the DPP in their slow march to independence?
Irrespective of whether the Chinese officials and media are intentionally or subconsciously focusing on the worst-case scenario -- no matter how unlikely that scenario is -- they are succeeding only in deepening their misunderstanding of what is happening here. This can only be bad for stability on both sides of the Strait.
The logic in the China News Service article may be contorted and murky, but the Taiwanese government would do well to take note. In their recent international remonstrations, China has been relying on its economic influence and the issue of regional stability to force other countries into showing where their allegiances lie.
They are asking them to say, rather one-sidedly, that they would not join the fray and support Taiwan in the event that conflict begins in the Strait -- as if any problem would be the result of Taiwan's actions.
Neither Singapore nor Australia have gone on to say what they would do if any conflict arose that was not precipitated by the Taiwan side. Is this showing a responsible attitude towards stability in the Strait? China's strategy is to heap accusations on Taiwan, create tensions across the Strait, and make the international community blame Taiwan for the situation.
By this logic, China will likely use the constitutional amendment bills to claim that Taiwan is steering a course for independence. In light of this it is important for the government to make clear to the international community just what these recent amendments are, and what their significance is. This would include clarifying referendum procedures -- especially the fact that the public does not have the right to initiate referendums for constitutional amendments.
In their explanation of what is happening, the government should include a number of points. First, they must correcting misreadings and misunderstandings fostered by the Chinese and international media. Second, they should show how responsible Taiwan is being, and not give the impression that we are only interested in domestic political infighting.
The recent amendments are a good example, since they passed with the support of both the government and opposition.
Third, the government should reiterate the fact that it keeps its word. In these recent amendments there was no mention of sovereignty, territorial issues or unification or independence -- as Chen promised in his May 20 speech.
The government must act to clarify these crucial points, through all available channels. Otherwise, China's misreading and misinterpretation of Taiwan's political development will prevail, and Taiwan will once again lose points with the international community.
Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
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
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
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