During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
Some people feel that this declaration follows the spirit of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The resolution also declares that Taiwan's future shall be decided by the people of Taiwan, with the only difference being the ultimate goal.
This comparison oversimplifies the fundamental differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy. It also ignores an issue even more crucial than the Taiwan independence option, namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public's decision.
The Resolution on Taiwan's Future was passed by the DPP's National Congress on May 8, 1999. It advocates the idea that Taiwan's national sovereignty rests with the nation's citizens, that it is a fully sovereign nation with the national title of the Republic of China and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China.
In contrast to this, Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy.
There is also the issue of the mechanism used to allow the public to decide. Should Taiwan's future be decided by the members of the National Assembly as in the past, by a unification or independence government through a presidential election, or in a referendum? There must be a clear direction. The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan -- in other words, to implement a referendum on sovereignty.
Ma obviously has no clear stance on this issue. Ma should declare his position on the question of whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum.
Prior to the public's making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public's decision will be respected.
Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision. According to the DPP's charter and the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat.
We have still not been given a clear answer to this question.
Simply put, the question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma.
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture and Information Department.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As a person raised in a family that revered the teachings of Confucius (孔子) and Mencius (孟子), I believe that both sages would agree with Hong Kong students that people-based politics is the only legitimate way to govern China, including Hong Kong. More than two millennia ago, Confucius insisted that a leader’s first loyalty is to his people — they are water to the leader’s ship. Confucius said that the water could let the ship float only if it sailed in accordance with the will of the water. If the ship sailed against the will of the water, the ship would sink. Two
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly