A few days ago, some PFP legislators and their supporters gathered at the Legislative Yuan, holding placards saying "Oppose `one country, two systems,'" and voicing support for the Hong Kong people's struggle for freedom.
This was meant to show support for the Hong Kong people's action against anti-subversion legislation which would be mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, if passed.
This scene has inevitably created confusion. One wonders if the PFP is against "one country" or against "two systems."
If the party is opposing "one country, two systems," then does it advocate "one country, one system" or "two countries, two systems?"
According to the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), "two systems" means a special administrative region can have its autonomy and exercise a system that is different from China's.
In this respect, "two systems" is quite compatible with "maintaining the status quo" as advocated by the PFP. There is not much for the PFP to oppose. If the PFP is not opposing "two systems," is it then opposing "one country?"
Since it is supporting the Hong Kong people's struggle for freedom and opposing "one country, two systems," this "one country" is apparently not the Republic of China. Rather, it's got to be the People's Republic of China (PRC).
If the PFP is against "one country" under PRC rule, does it mean it supports "one country" under ROC rule? This reads like a fairy tale from the previous century, doesn't it?
Now back to reality. PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) once proposed "integration under a one-China rooftop." He appeared to be echoing from afar the "one China" stance advocated by the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
However, if we take a close look at the blue camp's cross-strait policy platforms -- from KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) confederation dictum to Soong's "one-China rooftop" to the recent "two-China status quo" proposed by former education minister Mao Kao-wen (毛高文) -- they all substantively oppose "one country." Regardless of the wording, this is the case from the perspective of independent sovereignty and equality.
In this regard, their position is primarily the same as former president Lee Teng-hui's (
In election time, we always hear the mathematical war of words about "how many Chinas, how many countries" or "how many Chinas, how many systems." Due to their history and identity, the blue camp frequently gets trapped in the "one China" or "one country" cage. This contravenes reality, and the blues have a struggle with which to tangle in their hearts.
However, from Mao's "two-Chinas status quo" to the PFP's "oppose `one country, two systems,'" we can see that the blue camp has gradually revised its platform on cross-strait relations.
I think the cross-strait problem lies not in the questions of "China or no China" or "how many systems." The point is that Taiwan's mainstream public opinion simply cannot accept "one country." As long as this crux is not resolved, it would be useless to say much more.
Shen Fu-hsiung is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Francis Huang
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS