A vast majority of Taiwanese want to decide the future of their homeland for themselves. If Taiwan were someday to be unified with China, it should only be a result of the people’s choice. Conversely, if it were to become independent, that, too, should be the result of the people’s choice.
Yet, under the so-called “1992 consensus” concocted by Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, the right of Taiwanese to self-determination is in danger of being eradicated.
Under the scheme, the KMT has agreed to accept Beijing’s version of “one China,” which includes Taiwan. In return, Beijing has allowed President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government to claim that Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China (ROC).
Ma is well aware, however, that the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) cannot co-exist. Soon, he would have to negotiate with Beijing the demise of the ROC and the transfer of control over Taiwan. In other words, Beijing and the Ma government want to decide the future of Taiwan between themselves regardless of what Taiwanese want.
It is time that Taiwanese take back the government from the China-leaning KMT and regain the right to determine their own future. Here is my suggestion: The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should consider making a pledge to the 23 million people of Taiwan that if it is returned to power, it would implement at the earliest appropriate time a referendum to support or reject Taiwan’s unification with the PRC.
Such a referendum would galvanize people into a large anti-unification group and a much smaller pro-unification group (rather than green and blue or ethnic Taiwanese and Chinese mainlanders).
The KMT would probably oppose the referendum and may call for a boycott as it did during the DPP administration under president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2007. This time, however, a boycott would likely fail because many Taiwanese who have supported the KMT would nevertheless want to have a chance to reject calls for unification.
If the KMT insists on boycotting the referendum, it runs the risk of being labeled collaborators with the Chinese Communist Party, and its leader as the 21st-century Wu Sangui (吳三桂).
China is also likely to oppose the referendum and may even threaten to use force to stop it, but China would then be unable to defend its claim of a peaceful rise. Taiwanese only want to express their wishes in a peaceful manner. How can Beijing expect the world to believe that its rise is peaceful when it cannot even accept the peaceful exercise of the right of Taiwanese to choose their future?
More than 115 years ago, China ceded Taiwan to Japan “in perpetuity,” an act that triggered the long separation of Taiwan from China. It is China’s moral imperative to seek the consent of Taiwanese on whether they are willing to return to their erstwhile “motherland.” The threat of using force would only stiffen people’s resolve to resist unification.
In the meantime, the DPP should assure Beijing that the rejection of unification would not automatically make Taiwan an independent state. It would only bring cross-strait relations back to the days of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen — that is, China and Taiwan are two separate entities
The DPP should challenge China to a peaceful competition to win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese by means of trade, tourism, and educational and cultural exchange programs. It should make it clear that a DPP government would not be averse to a second referendum at an appropriate future time to gauge public sentiment on the issue of unification. Beijing still has a lot to prove that it cares about the welfare of Taiwanese.
Will the US block the referendum under pressure from China? Such a move would be viewed by Taiwanese as a sign of crumbling US commitment and would embolden the pro-unification minority to openly collaborate with Beijing. Instead, the US has every reason to encourage China to accept the challenge and peacefully compete for the support of the people.
For the result of the referendum to be legally binding, at least one half of all eligible voters must take part in balloting, a very high hurdle. However, the stakes are also high. For the first time in history, Taiwanese would hold in their hands the destiny of their homeland. All eligible voters, green or blue, old or young, rich or poor, should exercise their right to self-determination.
Let the world know once and for all whether Taiwan is or is not a part of China. Rejection of unification would provide the DPP government a strong mandate to begin revising laws and reorganizing the government in a way consistent with Taiwan’s being a sovereign state separate from China.
Edward I. Chen was the president of the United Formosans for Independence in America from 1960 to 1966.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry