Last Wednesday, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) appointed Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) premier amid high expectations from the public. Hsieh later gave interviews to talk about his ideas for the administration. I didn't agree with his comments on issues such as rectification of the national title and the "one China" principle.
Hsieh said the Executive Yuan will not push ahead with issues on which society has yet to reach a consensus. He further argued that, as to the movement to "rectify the name of Taiwan," consensus should first be established within society. If only 30 percent of the nation's population supported the idea, this would not become government policy.
There is nothing wrong with this. A cause that only garners 30 percent of the public's support can be regarded as a social movement rather than a consensus. Do we have to win over everybody and gain 100 percent support to constitute a consensus?
In recent years the nation has seen an upsurge of Taiwan consciousness, culminating in the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally on Feb. 28 last year [organized by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝)], in which more than 1 million people participated. The rally was so influential that the China-leaning pan-blue camp unexpectedly failed to unseat Chen. Chen's success in winning a second term has given the movement to rectify the country's name a further boost.
We wonder what evidence Hsieh can present to prove that only 30 percent of the population are in favor of changing the country's name. Did the Cabinet's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission or the pro-unification media outlets provide Hsieh with the statistic? As Taiwan is a highly democratized society, if evidence is lacking for a statement, we can resort to a referendum to assess popular support for an issue.
Although it may be inappropriate to ask private schools and enterprises whose names include "China" or "Chinese" to change their names, there is no reason why the government shouldn't adopt a gradual approach to changing the names of government agencies, state-owned enterprises and public schools.
Hsieh emphasized that, prior to any constitutional amendment, the Executive Yuan has to comply with the Constitution, and that the Constitution supports a "one China" interpretation. In theory, it is perfectly justifiable for the ruling party to obey the Constitution. However, Taiwan is not a normal country and different political parties interpret differently whether or not Taiwan is included in the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC).
In additional, the whole world recognizes "one China" as referring to the statement that there is but one China in the world and Taiwan is part of China, and that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate government representing China. This is why the DPP often gives an evasive reply on the issue to avoid controversy, and why Chen has been unwilling to recognize the "one China" principle.
I am not opposed to Hsieh's insistence on obeying the Constitution, but he must not include the "one China" framework in the Constitution. He will not only be going against mainstream public opinion if he does so, he will also be falling into the trap orchestrated by the pro-unification media. If he continues to insist on his stance, he may wipe out all the DPP's political achievements.
Many DPP supporters can accept that the party is moving toward the center of the political spectrum. However, I believe that its basic stance has to remain unchanged. If Hsieh wishes to pander to the opposition with his disapproval of name changes and support of constitutional "one China," his "Cabinet of negotiation" bodes ill for Taiwan.
Kuo Chang-feng is a doctor and member of the Northern Taiwan Society
TRANSLATED DANIEL CHENG
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing