The First National Assembly held its eighth meeting in 1991. At the session I hosted on April 22 that year, the delegates completed two major constitutional achievements: They added 10 Articles to the Constitution of the Republic of China and abolished the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion.
On May 1, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) officially announced that the period had ended. The media quoted the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in what has become a famous statement: “I don’t know anymore what kind of relationship the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have.”
On Feb. 23 that year, not long before Lee’s announcement, the National Unification Council proposed the National Unification Guidelines. On March 14, the Cabinet passed the guidelines, which have been the fundamental principle for Taiwan’s China policy. It also issued a statement, “The Meaning of ‘One China,’” in which it made the pragmatic concession that the Republic of China (ROC) only has jurisdiction over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, despite its “de jure sovereignty” over China.
The statement said that “each side of the Taiwan Strait is administered by a separate political entity.” As far as the KMT is concerned, this statement still stands.
Political scientists generally hold that “political entity” and “state” are synonymous. Since cross-strait relations are indeed different from relations between two independent states, the government used the term “political entity” instead of “state” to show China its goodwill. Unfortunately, Beijing condemned the guidelines because of their implications.
During his interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug 26 this year, Ma defined cross-strait relations as “special relations,” but not a “state-to-state” relationship, and stressed this “very important point.”
But if cross-strait relations are not considered state-to-state, can they still be described as special relations between two separate political entities? If cross-strait relations are now neither, Ma’s definition would seem to have strayed from the National Unification Guidelines.
As private cross-strait exchanges multiply, more problems are arising.
Additional Article 11 of the Constitution states that: “Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
This is the constitutional basis for separate treatment of the people on each side of the Taiwan Strait. To regulate cross-strait exchanges, the legislature later passed the Act Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which is the basis for judging certain legal cases.
The “Chinese mainland area and free area” in the ROC Constitution and the “Taiwan area and mainland area” in the law are terms used to distinguish the two regions in discussing the rights and obligations of their inhabitants, as well as legal cases. Such terms are unrelated to the definition of cross-strait relations.
On Sept. 4, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) made the surprising claim that Ma’s remarks had been based on the ROC Constitution and the above act. Calling the two sides of the Strait “Taiwan” and “the mainland area” indicates equal status, Wang said. But if the new definition of cross-strait relations is an “area-to-area” relationship, isn’t the dignified ROC president nothing but a local ruler?
Yeh Chin-fong is a former vice chairwoman of the Cabinet’s Mainland Affairs Council.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS