Taiwanese politics is intriguing and fast-changing. Outsiders may not be surprised that the US government keeps pressuring President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to soft-pedal his move to "cease the function" of the National Unification Council and "cease the application" of the National Unification Guidelines. But they might be surprised by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) embrace of independence as an option for Taiwanese people -- which it did in an advertisement in the Liberty Times.
The right to hold national referendums was long considered by the KMT as a political taboo and analogous to de jure independence. But on Sept. 23, 2004, the party seconded the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's proposal to include the right to referendum in future constitutional reform. Now KMT members raise the idea of holding referendums to decide key government issues.
Now that the democratic value of "letting the people decide" has begun to take root in Taiwan, the gap between the pan-green and pan-blue camps on the independence-unification dichotomy will become increasingly meaningless. The notion that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country will become the common ground in Taiwanese politics.
As a result, Taiwanese will be able to judge a national leader with more scrutiny.
As perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan today, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) recent handling of the unification council and guidelines issue and his wavering stance on unification or independence reveals a lack of decisiveness and integrity.
Chen is judged by many as a politician who criss-crosses the political spectrum and pushes the envelope in cross-strait affairs. It is sad to see that Ma is incrementally adopting the A-bian model -- which is to think of running a country as like running a campaign.
Ma's unilateral decision to make independence an option for the KMT reflects a typical one-man decision, with little or no consultation even within his own party.
Former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) expressed his objection to such a proposal. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who suggested accepting independence as an option for Taiwan during the KMT chairmanship election, also challenged Ma's one-man decision-making style.
From the perspective of Taiwan's democratic consolidation, for the KMT to respect the people's right to decide their own fate and future relationship with China is a great leap forward. However, whether Ma is sincere in respecting the people's right to freedom of choice remains in doubt.
To avoid being seen as tilting too much toward Beijing, Ma's camp has attempted to use the debate on Chen's proposal to abolish the unification council and guidelines to attract pro-independence voters.
As the most popular potential candidate for the pan-blue camp in the 2008 presidential race, Ma has no choice but to reveal his stance on cross-strait relations. Regretfully, Ma's recent remarks on Taiwan's "status quo" and its relations with China demonstrate a lack of recognition of the cross-strait reality, as well as disrespect for democratic principles.
To keep in step with public opinion, Ma chose to take the heat now, regardless of the pressure he might face from within his own party. People can be expected to back Ma for the next presidency if he continues with this approach.
But is Ma really doing all of this out of concern for the national interest? Can he counter the pro-unification forces from the pan-blue camp? Or is Ma an opportunist politician who only has his eyes on stealing votes from the DPP?
The voters will decide.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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