The issue of whether to include an image of the Republic of China (ROC) flag on new national ID cards has sparked debate, with Minister of the Interior Hsu Kuo-yung (徐國勇) on Tuesday urging lawmakers not to politicize the issue.
Hsu said that the cards have not always depicted the flag and most countries, including China, have never put their flag on ID cards.
Whether the card has the ROC flag is largely irrelevant, as it is only for domestic use, but there is not much of an argument for removing it if doing so would cause strife, Hsu said.
The new card was designed to protect personal information, which explains the removal of spousal information from the face of the card, but not the removal of the flag, he said.
A similar issue arose in the UK in 2009 when the Union Flag was removed from the national ID card there. At the time, the British government said that the decision was made to “recognize the identity rights of the people of Northern Ireland,” but members of the then-opposition Conservative Party objected and vowed to reverse the change.
Some have said that Britons’ ID card should have a flag for when they travel to countries in the European Economic Area, where it is accepted as a travel document. Taiwanese use a passport, not their ID card, when traveling to other countries, except China, where they need a “Taiwan Compatriot Travel Document” issued by Beijing — Chinese authorities will not even look at an ROC national ID card.
The only “benefit” of removing the flag would be to help “desinicization” efforts, but even then, the effects are debatable, as the card did not initially bear the flag.
Online commenters have said that Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) ID card did not have the ROC flag, or any national symbol or emblem. However, as people frequently use their ID card in daily life, removing the flag might benefit localization or independence efforts, as its absence might further erode the ROC from the public consciousness.
Those opposed to removing the flag are not pushing for its addition to the passport, which is seen by officials wherever Taiwanese go. The passport has the national emblem on the cover, and a small outline of Taiwan and the outlying islands on the inside back cover, but no flag. By contrast, US passports have a large, full-color US national flag in the background of the personal information page, while the Canadian passport has two small Canadian flags on the inside back cover.
The sensitive nature of the topic, and the range of opinions that the flag’s removal has stirred up, shows that the government should promote further dialogue. The card’s design has not been finalized and the government could still change it before ID cards are replaced next year. Moreover, the addition of the flag would be an aesthetic change — the card’s electronic components, such as biometrics storage, would not be affected — so there would not be a major overhaul.
The government should consider sending anonymous surveys to Taiwanese of voting age to gauge public opinion.
As the aesthetics of the card have little political or technological effect, but a considerable effect on public sentiment, the government would be wise to consider the majority’s wishes when deciding the issue.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS