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.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS