Vote for Taiwan
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential nomination process is an ugly show of greed and double standards. Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) picked up an application form on April 20, registered on May 17 and paid a registration fee of NT$7 million (US$213,793), delivered her campaign speech to KMT fellows on June 10 and gained 46.2 percent support — surpassing the 30 percent threshold required by the party.
On June 17, her name was presented to the KMT Central Standing Committee for screening and on July 19 she was officially nominated as the party’s presidential candidate for the Jan. 16 election.
When Hung touted her “one China, same interpretation” policy, she was advised “not to mention the Republic of China [ROC] to avoid state-to-state confusion.” Recently, she claimed that the ROC Constitution “calls for ultimate unification with China.”
On Wednesday last week, she was officially informed that her removal would take place on Saturday at a special national congress. She followed the party’s rules, plunged into the party preliminary election and earned the candidacy, but now she is to be removed because of her China policy and poor polling.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said the party has long supported the so-called “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations” policies, which have led to peaceful cross-strait development.
When Chu met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing on May 1, he said that both sides of the Taiwan Strait “belong to one China, but with each side ascribing different contents and definitions to the concept of one China.”
The Associated Press reported it under the headline: “Taiwan party leader affirms eventual reunion with China.”
“Eric Chu also affirmed his party’s support for a consensus reached between Chinese and Taiwanese negotiators in 1992 that is interpreted by Beijing as a commitment to eventual unification, a stance China holds sacred, but which is increasingly unpopular among young Taiwanese,” the report said.
Well, “one China” is recognized by all Chinese on both sides of the Strait, but not Taiwanese. That is exactly the US’ Taiwan policy based on the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.
What is the difference between Ma’s “1992 consensus,” Chu’s “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China” and Hung’s “ROC Constitution calls for ultimate unification with China”?
They all have the same meaning — that Taiwan is part of China — but are all not true.
The “1992 consensus” is a fabricated term made up by former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2000; it refers to an alleged understanding between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party that Taiwan and China acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what that means.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) considers it sacred and openly said that any future president should continue to pursue a cross-strait policy based on it.
It is too early to tell who will be the next president. No matter who will be elected on Jan. 16, the international media will call that person Taiwan’s president, but under the state named the ROC. It is really odd that the Taiwanese president equals the ROC president.
With the name ROC, there is no difference between a KMT-run ROC government and a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) one, they mean the same nation: ROC, an exiled government of China. Is it what we want? Does it represent the will of the people?
No, the ROC has its own historical legacy that belongs to China, but not Taiwan.
Fortunately, DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) spoke out and commented on Ma’s speech on Double Ten National Day, saying: “A president who has served seven years in office still thinks the people misunderstand him, while he spends a lot of time on excuses. It shows that there is a large ideological gap between the president and the public.”
Voters will clearly and loudly to speak up for what they want. Cast your ballot to reject those “one China, with either same interpretation or different interpretation” — they all call for ultimate unification with China.
Vote for Taiwan, not for the ROC, not for China.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under