China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesperson Fan Liqing’s (范麗青) recent statement that “Taiwan’s future must be decided by all Chinese people, including Taiwanese” has been roundly criticized in Taiwan.
Clearly, the vast majority of Taiwanese find such a barbarous, irrational position completely unacceptable. To put it bluntly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not even allow the Chinese public to decide the future of their own country, so how can it believe itself qualified to propose that Taiwan’s future should be decided by ordinary Chinese?
Excepting the ridiculous assertion of the need to “retake the mainland” during the regimes of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son and successor, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), I believe that few Taiwanese have been insane enough to want to decide the future of China on its behalf.
Even in the light of China’s ambitions of unification, the wisdom of Fan’s comments is dubious, to say the least. His words have galvanized dissatisfaction among Taiwanese with the Chinese government.
Indeed, the reaction in Taiwan has forced even President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who sees the eradication of the independence movement and gradual unification with China as his ultimate goal, to grudgingly announce, albeit after hiding away for the best part of the day and through a spokesperson, that “within the framework of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, Taiwan’s future shall be decided collectively by the Taiwanese as a whole.”
Of course, it wasn’t long before the online community were pointing out that Ma had actually said during a 2006 interview, for an overseas publication, that the Taiwan question would be decided by the people on either side of the Taiwan Strait, showing Ma once more for the hypocrite that he is.
Nevertheless, the ambitions of Beijing, Ma’s lies and the close connections between the two are old news.
Not only has this affair further consolidated Taiwanese self-awareness, it also provides us with another opportunity to reflect upon the implications of the highest principle to be found in the Constitution, that of “national sovereignty.”
It also facilitates the dismantling of certain logical contradictions and fallacies within the Constitution.
One pertinent question is how do we define the word “citizen” as used in Article 2 of the Constitution, which states: “The sovereignty of the ROC shall reside in the whole body of citizens.” Is this to include the citizens of China?
This question is not just an abstract concept mulled by lawyers and legal experts; it has direct ramifications for the foundations on which our liberal, democratic, constitutional government exists, and is of paramount practical importance.
The answer is, that with the exception of the anachronistic Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ambitions for “legal unification,” no matter how you look at it, the 23 million Taiwanese are the citizens referred to in the Constitution and this does not include the people of “mainland China.”
This leads us to another foil, this time found in Article 11 of the Constitution’s Additional Articles, which states: “The rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs, may be specified by law.”
That is, the “people of the Chinese mainland area” are differentiated from Taiwanese, and are unrelated to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The term “the mainland area” is perhaps a historical concept, and may well exist geographically, but it has no constitutional significance whatsoever as far as Taiwan is concerned.
The very existence of this concept in the Additional Articles could perhaps be attributed to the fact that back in 1991, when the ROC Constitution was being amended for the first time and when the country was in its initial stages of democratization, we had yet to be rid of the pernicious preoccupation with the “great unification of China.”
Looking at this today, the “mainland area” is an empty term, a foil, a fallacy.
The ROC has not had any hold over a mainland area for a very long time now: The only territory it has had is some small islands, and the people living on them — the Taiwanese — are the only people capable of exercising sovereignty over it.
The term “mainland area” is a throwback to another time, retained within the Constitution, that has absolutely no significance aside from diluting the prestige of the Constitution and increasing the distance between it and the citizens of this country.
This is the reason that I have, on several occasions, criticized Ma for the way he focuses on certain aspects of the Constitution over others, giving more weight to those that are meaningless than to those that are important and truly concern the foundations of a democratic constitutional government: national sovereignty, the separation of powers and guarantees of human rights.
On this occasion, when Ma responded to Fan’s announcement with the qualifier of “within the framework of the Republic of China Constitution,” he was perhaps still thinking of the empty dichotomy that exists between the “Chinese mainland area” and the “free area,” when most people in Taiwan, I would wager, were thinking of the principle of national sovereignty.
The concept of national sovereignty is the greatest weapon we have to banish the demon of the “one country, two areas” proposal.
Huang Kuo-chang is an associate researcher at the Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Translated by Paul Cooper
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused