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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS