If a poll were taken, it is likely that 90 percent of people would not be able to tell the difference between the emblem of the Republic of China (ROC) and that of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), for both are a white sun on a blue background. Both in color and design, the two emblems are almost identical, the only difference being that the rays of the sun in the KMT party emblem are longer than those in the ROC emblem. This might be intended to reflect the comparatively longer history of the KMT.
At a campaign rally on Sunday, President Chen Shui-bian (
There are virtually no historical examples in which a political party has used its emblem and its anthem as the national emblem and national anthem. When the ROC was established in 1912, its flag was a five-colored flag. It was not until 1928, after Chiang Kai-shek's (
Chiang wanted the KMT to rule for 10,000 years, but his political power was not built on the support of the people, so eventually the party revealed its feet of clay. The KMT was first drawn into a civil war in China, followed by a war of resistance, first against the Japanese then against the communists, before making a final retreat to Taiwan. But this did not change Chiang's belief in the supremacy of the party, so in 1954 he made amendments to the National Flag and National Emblem Law to further ensure that the KMT's flag and symbol were also those of the ROC.
At that time there were no other political parties to protest, because except for the Young China Party and the China Democratic Socialist Party -- which were both supported by the KMT -- all other political parties were outlawed, and anyone who wished to challenge this prohibition faced a prison sentence. But political power is a fundamental human right and the prohibitions of authoritarian regimes are by their nature temporary, for there will always be people outside the party who will work against them. In Taiwan's case, the KMT's ban on the establishment of political parties was lifted in 1988. If the KMT continues to be benighted by the symbolism of the ROC sharing the same emblem as the party, and does not seek to establish a real sense of identity with the people, then the KMT will yet again be rejected.
In demanding that the KMT change its party emblem, Chen is emphasizing that as the president of the ROC, he intends to remain true to the "four noes" of his 2000 inauguration speech and the fundamental ideas behind his "10 points" expounded earlier this year, namely that he would not create a new constitution or alter the ROC's territory. He is not only telling this to the people of Taiwan, but also broadcasting this information to the world.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS