The pan-blue camp, which had initially vowed "to stop the national referendum on the issue of independence or unification, even if it meant losing the election," has taken a U-turn by announcing "ten principles on amending the Constitution." The pan-blues are now in favor of incorporating the right to a national referendum within the Constitution next year, and then approving a new constitution via a public referendum in 2005.
As a result, the issue of a new constitution has once again become the focus of debate between the ruling and opposition camps. What caused the pan-blues to hastily propose such a short timetable for the new Constitution? Obviously, it is a move made as a result of the pan blues' inability to gain control of the campaign's issues.
It has been suggested that if the opposition adopts policies that are identical to those of the ruling party in every respect, the voters will be forced to distinguish between the two parties by comparing the ruling party's policy implementation with that of the opposition party when it was in power. This way, the opposition might have a shot at winning the election.
The point is to confine the scope of the debate so as to trap the ruling party in quicksand and thereby accomplish the opposition's goal of defeating the ruling party. Therefore, no wonder the pan-blue camp has gone from opposing public referendums, to proposing an ultraconservative referendum bill. to shortening the timetable for a new constitution.
Although the pan-blues have proposed a bill in support of national referendums, the restrictions they have set -- amending the Constitution instead of writing a new one, insisting that the basic principles of the new constitution must be the same as those of the current one -- reveal conservatism and insincerity.
The pan-blue camp is simply using support for national referendums as part of its campaign strategy.
Whether the pan-blue camp indeed is thinking of nothing but the long-term welfare and future of Taiwan or simply trying to leave behind the "one China" curse is something that China knows best. On Nov. 17, the head of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China issued a coercive declaration on the hotly debated issue of a new constitution for Taiwan, with President Chen Shui-bian (
He went on to warn that "anyone who tries to separate Taiwan from China will be struck head on by the 1.3 billion Chinese including the Taiwanese comrades." From this declaration, it can be seen that while the issue of drafting a new constitution will necessarily become the subject of discussion and decision-making by the people, and that no substantive conclusion has been reached just yet, the Chinese government has already concluded that Chen will push for a public referendum on the issue of Taiwan's independence and the establishment of a Taiwan Republic. This is why Chen became the target of Chinese threats.
The most up-to-date campaign strategy of the pan-blue camp is to adopt a new constitution through a national referendum, while still emphasizing the independence of the Constitution and the sovereignty of the Republic of China (ROC). Therefore, the formal title of the Constitution will still be "ROC Constitution."
The pan-greens, on the other hand, leave the issues of the national flag and name open to discussion among all the political parties and the people via a referendum.
On the surface, the proposals pitched by the two sides contain only very minor differences on the issues of Taiwan's sovereign status and a new constitution. Obviously, the new constitutions advocated by both sides violate the "one China" principle used by China to trample Taiwan. The Chinese government has vowed to hit the pan-greens head on regarding issues on which the pan-greens have no fixed position.
Meanwhile, China has turned a blind eye toward the pan-blues, who also support using national referendums to amend the Constitution and reaffirm the existence of the ROC on Taiwan. One cannot help but feel skeptical about the ulterior motives of China. In fact, only two possible explanations exist. Either China favors the pan-blues, even though the pan-blues are also violating the "one China" principle with their new position on the issue of a new constitution. Or China has seen through the pan-blues' trick -- Beijing understands that the pan-blues' proposal to amend the Constitution via a national referendum is nothing but a smoke screen that plays the voters for fools, which means that there is no need for China to worry that the pan-blue camp will disrupt the cross-strait relationship.
Evidently, the "one China" policy previously proposed by the pan-blues must have made quite a favorable impression on China. Regardless of the reasons, the pan-blues' tactics may create divisions within Taiwan and further endanger democratic and constitutional developments.
China uses military threats to interfere with the Taiwanese people's right to decide things for themselves. If the pan-blue camp is really serious about pushing for national referendums and amending the Constitution, it should join the pan-greens in saying "no" to China, and in protesting China's trampling on Taiwan with its claim that "Taiwan is part of China's sacred and indivisible territory."
The people of Taiwan should express their repulsion at the Chinese Communist regime through their votes in elections and national referendums. Therefore, the ruling and opposition camps should quickly pass the national referendum law, and give top priority to the issue of unification, not independence, as the topic of a national referendum. Send a message to the other side of the Taiwan Strait that it is the popular will of Taiwan that Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan, rather than to the comrades on the two sides; that Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, Penghu and Kinmen, instead of the 1.3 billion Chinese.
The pan-blues must also understand that if the process of amending the Constitution is confined within the framework of a non-existent "ROC sovereignty," it will probably be difficult to resolve the problems in the current Constitution. After six rounds of amendments, the Constitution is incapable of meeting the country's future needs.
Taiwan, replaced and crowded out by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the international community, finds that the international space in which it can survive narrows by the day.
To keep up with globalized competition, and to make sure democracy becomes deep-rooted, a grave need exists to break away from the old framework and mind-set and establish an efficient and responsive political system.
To examine and reform the existing framework of the Constitution is a step in the right direction.
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS