Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) regularly revels in this fabrication, the time has come for all Taiwanese to dump the hypocrisy of the “1992 consensus.” The so-called consensus of 1992 is a fraud formulated by former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起).
Allegedly, the purpose was to facilitate cross-strait talks, and even then the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never publicly agreed to it. Further, the talks that were being “facilitated” at that time were not nation-to-nation talks, but rather party-to-party talks between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). What was really happening was that both parties were trying to find a way to maintain their respective claims that there was only “one China” which they represented. That idea must be scrapped.
The real consensus that Taiwanese should acknowledge is what came four years later when the nation took part in Taiwan’s first presidential election of the people, by the people and for the people. This is the gist of the recent effort by former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and other politicians in establishing the 1996 Consensus Promotion Alliance. This alliance spells out and specifies agreement of all parties in Taiwan as to the basis of Taiwan’s nationhood and hence its national identity.
Taiwan does have an identity problem. The pan-blue and pan-green parties have conflicting interpretations of what its identity is. Many Taiwanese are themselves struggling with the idea of what it means to be Taiwanese. As they struggle, however, one thing they can and should agree on is that Taiwan is a democratic nation. It is a democratic nation in which the people not only can, but also have been consistently and freely electing their president since 1996. Political candidates who cannot accept the reality of this statement should be drummed out of office and rejected by the people.
Taiwanese must realize that for too long outsiders have been imposing their thoughts on Taiwan. The US in its official policy claims that the status of Taiwan is “undetermined.” Undetermined by whom? The people of Taiwan already do determine their president and their future. The PRC, of course, also wants to get in on the act and claims it has the right to determine Taiwan’s future. These are the issues — the US does not want to admit to it, and the PRC wants to take it away.
One can be blue, one can be green, and one can have his or her own ideas on where the nation should go. However, everyone — yes, everyone — should agree that whatever direction and path the nation chooses, that choice is the sole responsibility and right of the Taiwanese people and no one else. To believe otherwise would amount to treason.
That may sound harsh, but it is the line that should and must be drawn and all politicians should be held accountable to it. It is even stronger than the idea that politicians should not hold dual citizenship. It may seem strange that Taiwanese have never directly formulated the belief in a “1996 consensus” before, for the idea is so simple and basic to any democratic country’s existence. Regardless, Taiwanese should wait no longer; this is an idea whose time and need for expression has come.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS