Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) proposal to maintain the “status quo” in cross-strait ties has been criticized from those within both the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
Critics have said maintaining the “status quo” has been the long-term policy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but it is now being adopted by Tsai. The pan-blue camp said Tsai pirated the KMT’s idea, and the pro-independence camp is critical of her as well, because they say she is advocating the KMT’s manifesto. In fact, there are different interpretations of what maintaining the “status quo” means depending on the time and the context.
When Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) were president, the KMT’s rhetoric went from reclaiming China and unifying China based on Sun Yat-sen’s (孫逸仙) Three Principles of the People to the “three noes” policy of “no contact, no compromise and no negotiation” with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
When the KMT ruled Taiwan as a colonial foreign power, the dangwai (黨外, outside the party) movement demanded democratization, and some in the movement even proposed the overthrow of the Republic of China (ROC), for it was synonymous with the KMT.
At that time, the legislative and executive powers were in the hands of the National Assembly — elected in China in 1947 — and the president, whose tenure lasted for life. It was an authoritarian regime and it used the excuse that the “communist bandits” were about to invade Taiwan to reject democratization.
To maintain the “status quo” as championed by the KMT then means to maintain the KMT’s status as an authoritarian regime. Taiwanese who opposed it endeavored to change that “status quo” by campaigning for democracy and even the overthrow of the ROC.
Following the caretaker government of former president Yen Chia-kan (嚴家淦) the presidency was passed on to Chiang Ching-kuo, who intended to pass on the presidency to his son, but failed to do so because of the scandal caused by the 1984 murder of Taiwanese journalist Henry Liu (劉宜良) in California, which marked the end of the Chiang family’s authoritarian rule.
As a result, then-vice president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) became the president, which gave him the opportunity to initiate the democratization of Taiwan.
The democratization process ended the “status quo” that the authoritarian regime was trying to maintain. Because a government formed or dominated by Taiwanese was unacceptable to the KMT, it promptly changed its stance from anti-communist to pro-communist, abandoning Chiang Ching-kuo’s “three noes” policy and beginning to move toward unification.
Especially after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power, Taiwan’s economy has become dependent on China, thereby pushing Taiwan closer and closer to the KMT’s objective of unification with China. However, pro-independence supporters opposed unification with China, and that is why the policy to maintain the “status quo” was proposed.
The pro-independence faction wants to maintain the “status quo” while the Ma administration follows the same policy, but the difference is that Ma’s version of the “status quo” means that Taiwan and China are “one country, two areas,” while the pro-independence faction’s definition of the “status quo” is in accordance with the Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, according to which Taiwan is a sovereign state although it is not juridically a regular country.
It is clear that the “status quo” carries different meanings to the two groups that claim to maintain it.
Chen Mao-hsiung is an adjunct professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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