The controversy over whether President Chen Shui-bian (
It is reported that Chen's move is aimed primarily at rebutting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
As perhaps the most popular candidate from the pan-blue camp for the next presidential elections, Ma has no choice but to reveal his stance on cross-strait relations. Regretfully, Ma's comments on Taiwan's status quo and future relations with China demonstrates a huge lack of recognition of the cross-strait reality and a failure to consistently uphold democratic principles.
Ma's change of tone from initially "embracing unification as the sole option for Taiwan" to "the future of Taiwan should be decided by people across the Taiwan Strait" and then to "accepting independence as one of the options for Taiwan's future relationship with China" displayed the inconsistencies in his political philosophy.
Although the KMT clarified Ma's comments as meaning that "it is up to the Taiwanese people to decide whether to unify with or be independent from China, but the KMT still opposes independence and favors maintaining the status quo," there is an urgent need for both political parties to use the debate to generate a domestic consensus on how to safeguard the cross-strait status quo.
The key idea behind Chen's proposal to abolish the council and guidelines is consolidating the people's democratic right to freedom of choice. Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have long insisted on leaving the decision on the future of cross-strait relations to all the people of Taiwan. They oppose any individual or political party unilaterally deciding the nature of Taiwan's future ties with China.
As maintaining the status quo of Taiwan as an independent and sovereign nation is becoming the mainstream value domestically, it is understandable that Ma is testing the waters by throwing out the idea of respecting the people's freedom of choice.
Whether or not Ma is sincere enough to embrace this mainstream view remains to be seen. Ma and the KMT should put more effort toward condemning Beijing for deploying an increasing number of missiles targeting Taiwan -- currently 784 -- and stop placing all the blame for the cross-strait stalemate on the Chen administration.
Most importantly, Ma and his pan-blue colleagues should engage in constructive debate with the DPP on how to consolidate Taiwan's national security to defend against China's military expansion and the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan.
The opposition pan-blue camp's position in the new legislative session on the long-delayed arms procurement budget will determine whether a consensus on safeguarding national security can be reached. Hopefully, efforts to understand China's missile threat and the military balance across the Taiwan Strait can be further intensified.
The new legislative session provides an arena for cross-party debate. Apparently under pressure from Washington, Ma said earlier this month that the KMT will make public its proposal on the special arms sale bill.
Ma's ultimate willingness to deal with the issue of the arms purchase is conceivably a result of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng's (王金平) recent stopover in Washington. The Bush administration has reportedly sent crucial messages to Ma denouncing the use of a "my way or the highway" approach in blocking the arms budget from being discussed in a legislative sub-committee.
Washington's impatience with Taiwan's consistent procrastination regarding the budget has resulted in great pressure being put not only on the government but also on the KMT. Therefore, finding ways to strengthen national security is the core issue that Ma cannot escape.
If Ma and his fellow pan-blue members can accuse Chen of violating his "five noes" pledge, how can they justify China's explicit intention and growing capability to take over Taiwan?
In any democracy, the opposition is entitled to act as a check and balance on government policies and budgets. But when it comes to matters of national security and national identity, Ma will have to speak out on how he views Beijing's intent to undermine the cross-strait status quo and what he can do to protect Taiwan's national interests.
A consensus on national security and identity is what Taiwan needs most now. It can only be reached through realistic and rational debate, not empty political rhetoric.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS