President Chen Shui-bian
While we applaud Chen's determination to uphold this principle, we think he may be confusing the issue. The sanctity of free speech is wholeheartedly embraced by this paper. On these grounds, although we disagree with the content of On Taiwan, we oppose a ban on Kobayashi's visiting Taiwan. For the same reason, we think Shi and King have the right to state their views on comfort women, especially now they have clarified they were speaking strictly about certain comfort women they knew, rather than all comfort women in general.
However, King's statement on a television talk show regarding the Republic of China is an entirely different story. We believe that King's open denial of the legitimacy of the ROC -- saying she does not recognize it -- is inappropriate. Free speech is not an issue here. What is at stake is the government's political accountability toward its people.
While King, a longtime supporter of Taiwan independence, was right about "the right of the people to revolt," she must not forget the "ROC on Taiwan" has -- through democratization -- become a government derived from the consent and free will of the people to whom it owes political accountability. How can our government be politically accountable when its members do not even concede the government's legitimacy? Had King been an ordinary citizen, rather than a member of the government, she would be free to make such a statement. But she is not.
If King simply finds the name "ROC" unacceptable and would like to advocate a change of name, then she should clarify her position. So far, she has given the impression that she is against the "ROC" government in Taiwan, rather than just the name.
In any event, what is in a name? What matters is the substantive state sovereignty that Taiwan enjoys. Once she accepts that Taiwan is the "ROC," then she should not find it so hard to accept the name "Republic of China."
Based on what we know about King, she does appear to love Taiwan dearly. Both King and her husband were banned from returning to Taiwan for several decades, because of their involvement, in Japan, with the Taiwan independence movement. In the post-martial law era, King has continued to work on improving relations between Japan and Taiwan. She also donated NT$2 million to the government to help out with the disaster relief after the 921 quake.
We call on King, out of her love for Taiwan, to do the right thing -- either retract her statement or resign as presidential advisor. Her remarks have made the Chen administration's already-difficult position even worse. The controversy is fanning up strife between ethnic Taiwanese and mainlanders. The controversy over On Taiwan has dragged on long enough. Let us put an end to it. Taiwan's young democracy cannot endure it much longer.
Finally, we also warn opposition lawmakers against using a double standard. Demand no less of their own speech than they do of King. The personal insults and groundless accusations they make, both inside the legislature and out, make a mockery out of a cherished freedom.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS