Taiwan and China have very different views of Taiwan as a “nation.” As history has unfolded, there has been a move from focusing on “China” toward focusing on “Taiwan.” After Taiwan’s democratization, this change was necessary, both as a result of a stronger sense of self for the nation and as a means of helping Taiwanese deal with the way in which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is holding Taiwan hostage with the remnants of an empty and foreign Republic of China (ROC).
Taiwanese gave the KMT the chance to return to power in 2008, because they believe in the democratic principles underlying the change of government and also because, in campaign mode, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used slogans such as “I love Taiwan” and promised to focus on the nation’s economic development. Fighting for votes, he said that if he failed to do a good job, he would be willing to face the test that democratic elections represent.
However, once Ma regained power for the KMT, he was clearly no longer interested in any such tests. Behind his smile, Ma has colluded with China in an evil attempt to sell Taiwan down the river. Ma has done a complete U-turn from his time as a member of the Anti-Communist and Patriotic League to his blind following of Beijing’s every order. Now, his government is using the make-believe “1992 consensus” to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Together with his “three-noes” policy of “no unification, no independence and no use of force,” — a negative, pretentious type of slogan — it is hard to imagine what sort of future Taiwan has as a nation.
January’s presidential election will be a test for the Ma regime and a challenge for the nation. Since the ROC represents the remnant of a country for the KMT, its power and the government can also be no more than mere remnants of the past. It is indeed a miracle that the ROC has managed to survive in Taiwan until today. However, the election will be an important battle in determining whether Taiwan can move toward becoming a new nation.
Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has proposed a “Taiwan consensus” as part of her presidential campaign platform, saying that if she is elected president, she will use open and transparent democratic procedures to forge a domestic consensus and build a consensus including all of Taiwan’s political parties. This consensus would then be used to interact, negotiate and communicate with Beijing in response to China’s rise and the challenges facing Taiwan.
A political stance such as this, based on democratic mechanisms, offers a stark contrast to the anti-democratic “China consensus” of Ma and the KMT.
Ma’s make-believe “1992 consensus” means a “China consensus” that will force Taiwan into unrealistic cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP.) Likewise, the fabricated view that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” highlights how Ma and the KMT are a “foreign power” operating in Taiwan. Given that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) does not recognize the ROC as a nation, a “China consensus” is tantamount to a sunset clause for Taiwan as we know it that will turn Taiwan into ghost money to be burned at the burial of the ROC.
Should we work together to set up a new nation using democratic principles under a “Taiwan consensus?” Or should we accept the “China consensus” scheme invented by the KMT and the CCP and abandon the ROC for the PRC?
I think that once the election is here, all Taiwanese nationwide will decide to save themselves by ensuring that the significance and values of democratization are safeguarded.
Lee Min-yung is a poet and political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS