Thu, Oct 18, 2012 - Page 8 News List

[ LETTERS ]

Taiwanese must reject KMT

First of all, I fully agree with the editorial by professor Chang Kuo-tsai (張國財) (“The tragedy of being Taiwanese,” Oct. 11, page 8).

However, I think the title of the piece is wrong. It should be “IT IS FANTASTIC BEING TAIWANESE.”

In a country that is made up of immigrants, one should never forget where one comes from. Most Taiwanese have Chinese roots, but should be proud to be Taiwanese, like Jeremy Lin (林書豪), who is of Taiwanese descent, but is now proudly American.

The big problems or mistakes, as they may be called, are the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the national flag and the use of the word “China.” To my knowledge the KMT was an army originally, not a political party.

The symbol of the KMT (army) is the sun (white on blue).

Our flag has the same symbol and that is the first thing that needs to go.

Let school chidren design a new flag for all Taiwanese, not just the KMT. Why China Airlines and not Taiwan Airlines? Why China Steel and not Taiwan Steel? Why CPC and not TPC?

If the KMT wants to keep that name, it is OK with me, but the KMT does not own Taiwan.

Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese, Chinese descent, Filipino decent or the descendants of those from other islands long ago.

Taiwan is a fantastic, beautiful island — free, safe and democratic. We want to keep it that way and continue to improve it. Be sure that that will never happen if we become part of mainland China.

At the same time we should never forget all the people (soldiers) who died for us in the wars with China and Japan.

How can the KMT explain to all those who fell for our freedom that our Taiwan is to be gifted to China?

Gerry Floor

Greater Taichung

Wrong substitution

The initiative by former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of “one Constitution, two interpretations” or a “constitutional consensus” (“Results of Hsieh visit to be seen,” Oct. 12, page 8) is nothing but a simplistic substitution of the controversial “1992 consensus, respective interpretations” slogan that implies the “one China” concept.

Hsieh’s substitution of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution in place of the “1992 consensus” does not remove the controversy from this slogan at all.

According to the ROC Constitution, the nation’s territory includes the “free region,” which refers to Taiwan and the “non-free region,” which refers to China. The ROC lost the mainland in 1949, but its constitution still claims the mainland as its territory. Whether China is “non-free” or otherwise is for Chinese themselves to decide.

China has its own constitution and does not accept the rival, obsolete ROC Constitution. No consensus for the ROC Constitution is expected from China or even from Taiwan.

It is difficult for anyone to make any sensible interpretations. Many Taiwanese think it is time to amend the ROC Constitution or to enact a brand new constitution that fits Taiwan.

If Taiwan is a “free region,” Taiwanese should have the freedom to decide their own future. Self-determination is a lofty, peaceful, universal principle and it enjoys a global consensus without the need of any interpretation.

Charles Hong

Columbus, Ohio

This story has been viewed 1641 times.
TOP top