Taiwan is a de facto independent nation — anyone who doubts it should check the requirements in the Montevideo Convention — but it needs a new Constitution. The framing and promulgation would take time, effort and thought, so what should be done?
The first step is to examine why Taiwan’s existing Constitution does not fit. It was constructed in another place (China) at another time (1947) and for another country — the Republic of China (ROC). It was a dream held by another people and one that never quite survived China’s civil war.
However, some adherents of that dream still use the Constitution to stake a claim not only for Taiwan, but also, wishfully, for China.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949, but some remaining party members fled to Taiwan, where they imposed their “losers’ constitution” on Taiwanese.
Three years later, the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty should have sorted out the mess, but it did not. As a result, Taiwan was caught in a time warp and the KMT diaspora built a bogus one-party state. (I have extensively covered the inadequacies of that 1952 treaty in past opinion pieces.)
Time eventually caught up with the ROC. It took a severe hit on the international stage in 1971 when the followers of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — not Taiwanese — were expelled from the UN. A more fatal blow was dealt by the US in 1979, when it moved its embassy from Taipei to Beijing — and it finally began using the name “Taiwan” instead of “ROC.”
Unfortunately, the “ROC” name remained with Taiwan, although more like stale and moldy cheese, along with the outmoded ROC Constitution. These are the shackles that Taiwan has had to deal with over the past 75 years, but particularly since becoming a full-fledged democracy in 1996.
Constitutions do take time to rewrite, change and revise, so what should Taiwan’s democracy do in the interim? A good first step would be to create a new national flag.
Flags’ features are not permanent. Nations can and do change them with regularity amid the ongoing realities of their “imagined communities.” There is nothing sacred about flags. They should represent change and change accordingly.
Over the past two decades, as Taiwan has enjoyed its democracy, about 20 or more other nations have either altered their flags or created new ones.
However, Taiwan remains in its time warp, saddled with a flag that dates back to a vintage 1928 China. It was a time when Taiwan was a colony of the Japanese Empire and the KMT was seeking to define itself.
Denmark has one of the oldest flags among existing nations and the US has changed its flag more frequently than any other nation. In the US, a star is added to the flag every time a new state joins its union — US citizens do not even vote on it.
Some Taiwanese have said that because of the ambiguity of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan could become the 51st state of the US — but that star should be left for political technocrats to debate.
Taiwan needs a flag that represents the nation — all of Taiwan, not just the KMT diaspora that fled across the Taiwan Strait with past baggage.
Canada has one of best examples of a flag change. Its national flag went from a Union Jack to a Red Ensign and then, in 1965, to its iconic red maple leaf.
Then-Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson was responsible for that change, even though his preferred design was not chosen, insisting that the Canadian flag have no link to the British Empire and be free of British imagery. If Canada could break with its past, Taiwan certainly can.
Taiwanese must ask some basic questions about their flag. What is its purpose? How does it represent all of the people of Taiwan and their history? Why should the flag of those who lost the Chinese Civil War represent the many who never participated in that war and wanted self-determination?
Taiwan’s existing flag is described in Article 6 of the outdated Constitution.
Some will say: “Oh, but you should not touch the Constitution.”
However, it has been amended and changed so many times that those who made it in 1947 could easily ask: “What happened, and where are Tibet and Mongolia?”
Anyone who still has doubts about changing the outdated Constitution should consider that it was received and established by the now-defunct National Assembly. How many can remember the National Assembly, define it or list its duties? Now, the constitutional Examination Yuan and Control Yuan are destined for extinction.
What Taiwanese wants a flag that perpetuates the 228 Massacre? Who wants a flag that represents those who imposed the White Terror and martial law on Taiwan for four decades? Is it not time to put all of that to an end?
Taiwan needs a flag that represents the democratic imagined community that is emerging here. It needs a flag that represents all of Taiwan’s political parties and its many contributing movements, such as the Wild Lilies student movement in 1990, the 2008 Wild Strawberry movement and the 2014 Sunflower movement. It should also represent those who suffered for democracy on Green Island and at other prisons.
What about Taiwan’s Aborigines who influenced the great Austronesian migrations? Should its flag not represent them?
A contest could be held in which citizens put forth their ideas on what type of flag would best represent this new imagined and democratic community. Who could object to such a contest — or a new flag?
Certainly some of the old guard KMT — whose dream of controlling China has gone with the wind — would object. Their out-of-touch flag still gives them the fictitious right to claim that they are “high-class mainlanders” (高級外省人) stuck in Taiwan.
Regarding the US, could it object? Washington refuses to use the name “ROC” and has replaced it with “Taiwan.” Would America be so hypocritical as to object?
As for the Chinese Communist Party, would it object because the KMT flag represents the enemy that it defeated? Or would Beijing, contrary to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, try to argue that this justifies its false claim to Taiwan?
Would any other nations object, as if they had a right to interfere with the choices of the Taiwanese citizenry? If Taiwan’s flag changed, these nations might finally be forced to come to terms with the difference between the “one China” principle and a “one China” policy.
Many flags have flown over Taiwan. It is time for its citizens to stake their justifiable claim to the new reality that is here.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) spoke of the “new Taiwanese.”
Although former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) tried to co-opt that phrase and twist its meaning for his own purposes — his cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement and his party were soundly defeated afterward — a new Taiwanese spirit does exist, and it needs a flag that best represents its struggle for and achievement of democracy.
Taiwan also needs a new Constitution and a new name, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step — and the first step could easily be a new flag.
The rest would flow much more easily after that, and Taiwan’s new imagined community would find its proper direction and momentum.
Reality beckons. Taiwan needs that new flag. It needs a flag that represents its unique and real history and captures the true Taiwanese spirit.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS