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
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS