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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS