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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS