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 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