KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) says that the addition of "Taiwan" to the cover of the nation's passport is a serious constitutional issue. KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (林豐正) says it reflects a clear tendency toward changing the nation's name and that it will lead to cross-strait instability. People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) is of the opinion that it will harm the national passport, its dignity and character.
Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀), director of the PFP's Policy Research Center, says that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is using the issue to express his political motivation for Taiwan's independence. PFP legislative caucus convener Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) says that indirectly changing the nation's name is illegal and unconstitutional and constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president.
Can the mere addition of the word "Taiwan" to our passports -- to make the bearer's nationality clearer, thus reducing cause for confusion and mistakes, and helping to maintain the pleasure of traveling -- really constitute a change of the nation's name? Is it really a step toward independence? Can it really be said to be unconstitutional? Finally, does it really anger China?
The nation's name is to remain emblazoned on the passport cover in shining, golden letters and yet the opposition seeks to create an uproar by exaggerating the matter, describing it as a change of the nation's name. How can the mere addition of a word to a passport cover constitute a change to a nation's name? To say that the name is being changed "indirectly" is illogical. A nation's name is either changed or it is not changed. How could it possibly be changed "indirectly?"
If Taiwan could gain independence simply by adding the word "Taiwan" to its passports, that would make Taiwan independence a piece of cake for the independence movement, such that it wouldn't even be worthy of the title "movement."
In the mouths of the "pan-blue" alliance, however, anything can mean Taiwan independence. Indeed, if we are to believe all their rhetoric, Taiwan has already achieved independence. If Taiwan has already achieved independence, can it do so again -- a second time, a 10th time?
To say that the move is unconstitutional is also ludicrous. The Passport Act (護照條例) gives the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) authority over passports. So how could MOFA's redesign of the passport implicate the president in unconstitutional behavior?
The opposition is right on one point, though. This will have an impact on cross-strait relations. Over the past few decades, has China ever shown any goodwill toward Taiwan? Has there been anything that hasn't angered China? This matter will certainly have an impact on China's Taiwan Affairs Office (國台辦), which will start issuing rebukes. It wouldn't be the Taiwan Affairs Office if it didn't.
In the course of a debate, it is a wise strategy to remind oneself often of the basic issue under discussion. At the center of this conflict are passports. So, we should ask, what is a passport? A passport is a document that confirms one's identity and nationality when one travels from one country to another. Taiwanese passports are for use in all countries of the world, not just China.
Taiwan should not behave like an abused child, always considering China's mood before daring to make a move. Then people will stop saying that it's best to do nothing.
Taiwan's problems have for a long time been caused by someone else. Why should we be the constant target for Chinese abuse? We should go about our own business in a relaxed and dignified manner. That's the way to behave.
Chen Ro-jinn is a freelance writer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS