Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Wen-chung (
However, the clause had long been rendered moot by the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" (
The PFP and the DPP have fundamental differences -- the biggest being the national identity issue. While the PFP embraces the ideology that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are under the so-called "one China roof" -- which is very much like the "one China" principle, the DPP rejects the "one China" principle.
Due to this difference, the PFP has taken extreme caution in considering the possibility of working with the DPP. In particular, it fears a backlash from its supporters, whom most consider to be a more conservative and radical segment of the pan-blue camp.
However, in view of the enormous public pressure for inter-party cooperation, the DPP has been actively trying to explore the possibility of an alliance with the PFP, and the PFP is also giving it some serious thought. Lacking a legislative majority, this is a necessary step for the DPP to avoid repeating the problems of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) first term, during which policy implementation was made virtually impossible due to the boycott in the legislature.
Despite their differences, this does not mean there is no room for DPP-PFP cooperation. After all, political parties are supposed to have different political ideals and ideologies. Political diversity is precisely the point of a multi-party democracy. Nevertheless, political parties can still work together to the extent that there is overlap between their ideals and ideologies.
Therefore, although the DPP and PFP diverge on the issue of "one China" principle, they can still cooperate on other issues. Legislations dealing with domestic issues and interests would be a good starting point for the two parties to build some critically needed mutual trust.
As for the independence clause of the DPP's party platform, it should not serve as a grounds for the PFP's to refuse to work with the DPP. After all, according to the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," which was approved in 1999, the DPP acknowledges that the name of this country is the "Republic of China." Moreover, the DPP has also subsequently passed a resolution indicating that all resolutions approved by the party, including the "Resolution on Taiwan' Future," shall have the same force as the party platform. More specifically, former DPP chairman Frank Hsieh (
Many members of the DPP have advocated rectifying the name of the country to "Taiwan." However, until that is accomplished, ROC is still the name of this country, a fact that the DPP has not denied. To the PFP, which vows to defend the ROC until the end, the existence of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" should no longer give it grounds to refuse cooperation with the DPP on the account on the DPP platform.
Finally, a political party is the convergence of a group of people based on their political ideals and ideologies. While changing circumstances and times may prompt modification to those ideals and ideologies, members of the party must nevertheless embrace these ideals and ideologies sincerely.
In the present case, changing the platform easily give the impression of selling out one's ideals.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS