Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Yu Shyi-kun has said that the party's "Normal Country Resolution" is meant to restrain DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who says that there is "a constitutional one China" and that this must be respected. There are quite a few people who feel that Hsieh should be controlled, not because he is pro-unification, but because they doubt his resolve to work for the nation's independence.
Because the road to independence is full of obstacles and cannot be accomplished immediately, we must pragmatically promote it in accordance with consistent objectives. But it is difficult to to strike a balance between these "consistent objectives" and "pragmatic promotion," and that is at the center in the dispute over the Normal Country Resolution.
Regarding political party systems, the US soft "broker party" system means there are no platforms, but only the policy platforms created during presidential elections. The mission-based, rigid social democratic parties in western Europe, however, promote distributive justice while protecting productivity and democracy. Giving considerations to long-term convictions, pragmatic policies and promotional strategies causes political problems.
When the DPP was established, it roughly followed the example of European parties with both a basic platform and an action platform. In 1999, then-presidential candidate Chen Shui-bian (
The political importance of the resolution was kept ambiguous, but it was basically placed somewhere between an action and a campaign platform.
In 2000, Chen made the "four noes" pledge in his first inauguration address, which was lambasted by DPP legislators. In order to stay in power, Chen proposed amending the party charter, allowing him to serve as party chairman.
Hsieh said at the time that the Taiwan Independence Clause had been replaced based on principle that newer legislation surpasses older legislation. This move accommodated Chen but resulted in a confusion in the party's policy structure. In addition to my opposition to the proposal, I also withdrew from the DPP National Congress, but the resolution still passed.
Without doubt, the DPP's concession then is key to the recent dispute over the "Normal Country Resolution." If the amended resolution isn't passed at the party's National Congress while the Taiwan Independence Clause has become an inactive old regulation, the party will have lost its ultimate values.
On the other hand, if the congress passes the resolution, it will give Hsieh a core policy to observe for his electoral platform and future administration to bypass the party's internal policy hierarchy.
Additionally, the confusion of this system means that the resolution will have to fulfill too many functions on different levels. With the uneven quality of the resolution, matching a mishmash of different regulations will become the resolution's main characteristic.
If the DPP doesn't clarify the distinction between the strategical arrangement of the party platform -- ultimate goals, mid-term goals and short-term promotion, there will be more disputes in the future.
Not only will the "Normal Country Resolution" be source of these disputes, but I'm afraid that every major election will generate a new resolution. In the long run, a mass of resolutions will pile up and the party's values and structure will become a total mess.
Lin Cho-shui is a former DPP legislator.
Translated by Ted Yang
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS