Official clarifications
Professor Chiang Huang-chih (姜皇池) of National Taiwan University published an opinion piece in the Taipei Times (“Ma should study the fine print of legal texts,” June 8, page 8). The article contains several inaccuracies which the Presidential Office would like to clarify.
On page 343 of the fifth edition of International Law: Cases and Materials written by the American academics Lori Damrosch, Louis Henkin, Sean Murphy and Hans Smit and published in 2009, the authors commented on changes in Taiwan’s political situation after 2000. They wrote that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was strongly sympathetic to Taiwanese independence, that he proposed the “one country on each side” (一邊一國) policy in 2007 to separate Taiwan from China, suggested the creation of a new constitution and twice attempted, but failed, to push through a referendum on a Taiwanese bid to enter the UN.
The authors then wrote that the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who proposed the concept of “mutual non-denial” to improve cross-strait relations during the 2008 presidential elections, went on to win that election. The book stated: “As such, the likelihood of Taiwan seeking independence appears to have diminished.” The authors of the book did not say that Ma’s concept of mutual non-denial would jeopardize national sovereignty, so when Chiang claims that it would, that is clearly his personal opinion and not that of the authors.
The concepts of “mutual non-recognition of sovereignty and mutual non-denial of authority to govern” are based on the Constitution, because according to the Constitution, the government cannot recognize the existence of another sovereign state on the Chinese mainland. The government thus denies the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and not its own sovereignty. Chiang has clearly misunderstood this point. The Constitution is the supreme guiding principle for handling cross-strait relations. The concept will consolidate the sovereignty of the Republic of China (ROC), not jeopardize it.
Chiang also wrote that the book lumping Taiwan together with Hong Kong and Macao has a negative effect on Taiwan’s independence. However, the book divides political entities with special statuses into five different categories, putting the Vatican in Category A, Palestine in Category B, Taiwan in Category C, Hong Kong and Macao in Category D and other special entities in Category E. Taiwan, then, is not grouped with Hong Kong and Macao.
Chiang’s worries about a negative effect are confusing. Given his logic, should the Vatican and Palestine also worry about negative effects because they are treated as special entities just like Hong Kong and Macao?
Moreover, Chiang worries that “given Ma’s comments [about ‘one ROC, two areas’], it would not be so strange if in the future, mainstream legal textbooks from the West start viewing Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau as the same — ‘special administrative regions’ of China.” In fact, the definition of “one ROC, two areas” comes from the definition of a “Free Area” (自由地區) and a “Mainland Area” (大陸地區) in Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution. This amendment was promulgated in 1991, during then-president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) presidency, and three subsequent presidents have made no change to the article over the past 21 years. It is certainly not a new invention of Ma’s.
As the government has been improving cross-strait relations over the past four years, it has also upheld the ROC’s sovereignty and expanded its international space. For example, the number of countries granting visa-waiver privileges to holders of ROC passports has increased from 54 to 127 in the past four years.
In the four years since 2009, Taiwan’s health minister has been invited, in his capacity as minister, to attend the annual World Health Assembly as an official observer, after a 38-year absence. None of these achievements had previously been accomplished.
Joseph Chen
Presidential Office’s Department of Public Affairs
Translated by Eddy Chang
Ministry turns back to 1984
It sickens me that the Ministry of Education is cracking down on bilingual teaching and suggesting an all-Chinese curriculum. Are they limiting their attack on bilingual education only to Japanese and English schools, or are they also going after Atayal and other indigenous languages?
What about cram schools that teach Western and Chinese chess and those that teach science and math? I have friends working in this industry. What happens to these educators when this “reform” is enacted?
As an English teacher with extensive experience teaching and writing textbooks and teachers’ manuals in Taiwan, I would say that the ministry is overstepping its mandate once again and trampling the rights of parents who want their kids to get the best education possible.
Science has proven that if you cannot make the phonic sound of “th,” or differentiate between the “l” and “r” sounds before age four, you will never really master the technique. Kids need early exposure to nearly everything.
What we do not need is the ministry destroying a flourishing industry in Taiwan. Their assertion that students “don’t have the capacity to learn” is interesting to say the least. So is this notion that preschoolers, who are naturally curious about objects such as pens and Chinese writing brushes, will now be banned from using them.
Are these ministry officials even parents, or are they trying to turn Taiwan into a nanny state? What is next, banning chopsticks?
The ministry also added that it was discouraging preschools from helping to prepare young kids for grade school by teaching useful things like “Bopomofo” and basic math. If this is the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, I must be living in very Orwellian times.
I am quite dismayed by the ministry’s draconian initiatives. However, I expect small schools to thrive. Learning is contagious, and there is nothing that the ministry can do to stop it.
Saddest of all, this is just the latest episode featuring Taiwan’s non-country status as a banana republic with a despicable leader. The ministry is actively trying to stamp out education in favor of all-Chinese schooling? Please tell me this is not real.
Torch Pratt
Taipei
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath