The Democratic Progressive Party's primary for next year's presidential election is entering its final stage. Two recent seminars held by pro-independence group World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) discussed what a president should do in terms of national status, diplomatic, economic and interior affairs.
In keeping with its principle of impartiality, WUFI did not endorse a specific candidate. This is a good example of how an activist group can push its agenda without interfering with the political process.
Unlike WUFI, many activist groups established after 2000 have made demands and criticisms but avoided difficult questions about how much power a president should have, or how a name change and a new constitution can be achieved.
If we demand that candidates make promises they cannot keep, we will find after four or eight years that we have elected a president adept at shouting slogans but unable to implement any of his or her promises or policies.
In Taiwan, the government of the Republic of China (ROC) was initially a foreign government in exile.
During the rule of the Chiang family, it would have been legitimate for Taiwanese to resort to revolutionary means to overturn the regime.
With Taiwan's democratization, however, the Taiwanese and the ROC government have become one and it is no longer possible to overturn the regime through revolution.
Even WUFI has abandoned the option of armed revolution and is instead planning to achieve a change in regime by altering the nation's official title and writing and implementing a new constitution.
No independence activist likes the ROC Constitution, but we nevertheless must try to understand it before we throw it into the trash can.
Unless we want to bring an end to the ROC through revolutionary means, we must abide by the Constitution that we dislike in our campaign to change the nation's title and write a new constitution.
Both of these goals could be achieved through constitutional amendments, but the power to do so is in the hands of our legislators.
Alternatively, these goals could also be accomplished through a referendum, but the legislature has passed a Referendum Law (
This law would have to be amended before a referendum on the nation's official title could be held.
However, the pan-blue camp has controlled the legislature even since President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen is thus willing but unable to push for either a name change or the creation of a new constitution.
Unfortunately, he dares not tell his supporters that he lacks the power to bring about these changes.
The pan-green camp should learn from its mistakes and ask its candidates to explain how they will realize their goals, rather than encourage them to shout slogans.
The most important task for a pan-green president is to help the pan-green camp win a legislative majority -- his or her ability to win shouting competitions is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, I feel that a candidate who is fond of shouting slogans is likely to win more favor than one who is focused on winning a legislative majority.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor in the electrical engineering department at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations