Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential hopeful Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) team fought back yesterday against the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) criticism of Hung’s understanding of the US’ “one China” policy by accusing the DPP of mistranslating a word in Time magazine’s interview with DPP presidential nominee Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).
DPP Department of International Affairs director James Huang (黃志芳) called a news conference yesterday to say that the question of whether Hung, if elected, would be capable of coping with foreign policy “can be nerve-racking.”
Huang was commenting on remarks Hung recently made during a radio interview in which she said that the KMT’s cross-strait policy is consistent with that of the US.
KMT cross-strait policy is consistent with the Three Communiques signed by Washington and Beijing — the Shanghai Communique, the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Relations and the 817 Communique — as well as the Taiwan Relations Act, Hung said in the interview with Broadcasting Corp of China on Friday last week.
Hung said that the elements of the KMT’s policy” — the “one China” principle, the “1992 consensus” — a tacit understanding between the KMT and Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means — and a rejection of Taiwanese independence — are indicated in the communiques.
“It made no sense at all that Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung was trying to equate the ‘1992 consensus’ with the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act,” Huang said.
Huang said the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act existed long before the term “1992 consensus” was invented in 2000 by then-Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起), who admitted fabricating it in 2006.
Not only was Hung wrong about the chronological sequence of the events, but she showed her lack of knowledge of the foundations the US’ “one China” policy is based on, which makes the US policy different from China’s “one China” principle, Huang said.
With regard to the “1992 consensus,” US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Susan Thornton has recently clearly expressed the US’ position that although the US wants to see the basis for cross-strait exchanges continue, it would neither favor or disfavor what the name given to that basis is, Huang said.
Asked for a comment on Huang’s remarks, Hung spokesperson Jack Yu (游梓翔) said Hung has already clearly stated her stance on cross-strait relations.
“If the DPP is competent to manage the nation’s foreign affairs, could it please first explain why it translated ‘wonky’ as hsuehyuanpai (學院派, which means a person of academic style) [in the Mandarin version of the interview]?” Yu said.
Tsai made the cover of the latest Asian edition of Time with an article about her, in which she was described as having gained “a reputation for being wonky — the type who likes to debate protectionism over early-morning sips of black coffee or oolong tea.”
Yu said that Time meant to say that Tsai is a person of “unreliable” or “untrustworthy” characteristics by using the word “wonky.”
The mistranslation made by the DPP has become a laughing stock, Yu said.
The word “wonk” is defined as “a person preoccupied with arcane details or procedures in a specialized field” and is often used to describe politicians who like to talk policy, although “wonky” in its British usage can also mean “crooked or skewed,” but not to describe a person.
The paramount chief of a volcanic island in Vanuatu yesterday said that he was “very impressed” by a UN court’s declaration that countries must tackle climate change. Vanuatu spearheaded the legal case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, which on Wednesday ruled that countries have a duty to protect against the threat of a warming planet. “I’m very impressed,” George Bumseng, the top chief of the Pacific archipelago’s island of Ambrym, told reporters in the capital, Port Vila. “We have been waiting for this decision for a long time because we have been victims of this climate change for
MASSIVE LOSS: If the next recall votes also fail, it would signal that the administration of President William Lai would continue to face strong resistance within the legislature The results of recall votes yesterday dealt a blow to the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) efforts to overturn the opposition-controlled legislature, as all 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers survived the recall bids. Backed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) DPP, civic groups led the recall drive, seeking to remove 31 out of 39 KMT lawmakers from the 113-seat legislature, in which the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) together hold a majority with 62 seats, while the DPP holds 51 seats. The scale of the recall elections was unprecedented, with another seven KMT lawmakers facing similar votes on Aug. 23. For a
Taiwan must invest in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics to keep abreast of the next technological leap toward automation, Vice President Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) said at the luanch ceremony of Taiwan AI and Robots Alliance yesterday. The world is on the cusp of a new industrial revolution centered on AI and robotics, which would likely lead to a thorough transformation of human society, she told an event marking the establishment of a national AI and robotics alliance in Taipei. The arrival of the next industrial revolution could be a matter of years, she said. The pace of automation in the global economy can
All 24 lawmakers of the main opposition Chinese Nationalists Party (KMT) on Saturday survived historical nationwide recall elections, ensuring that the KMT along with Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers will maintain opposition control of the legislature. Recall votes against all 24 KMT lawmakers as well as Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) and KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁) failed to pass, according to Central Election Commission (CEC) figures. In only six of the 24 recall votes did the ballots cast in favor of the recall even meet the threshold of 25 percent of eligible voters needed for the recall to pass,