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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS