Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Hsu Chih-chieh (許智傑) on Monday called on the military to alter insignia containing the outdated Republic of China (ROC) “begonia” map used by some of its branches.
The proposal to change the insignia is the latest move by the DPP to “desinicize” Taiwan, after it renamed the nation’s postal service, redesigned the cover of the passport and the imagery on China Airlines aircraft, reduced content about China’s history in national curricula and renamed overseas representative offices.
With polls showing that Taiwanese overwhelmingly identify as “Taiwanese” and not “Chinese,” there is nothing wrong with these changes in principle, but they fail to get at the root of the problem.
When Army Lieutenant General Fang Mao-hung (房茂宏) responded to Hsu during a session of the legislature’s Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee, he said that the use of the map in the insignia was in accordance with the national territory described in the Constitution.
Hsu is correct to be concerned about the nation’s military having the maps of other nations in their insignia, but Fang is also correct in saying that the insignia are in line with the Constitution.
Therein lies the problem.
Modifying the Constitution to remove references to China, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau and other areas that are not under the administration of the ROC is a band-aid that Taiwan absolutely must tear off no matter how much it hurts.
Not only will the ROC government never administer the territory under the administration of China — which almost every Taiwanese would have no interest in even if it were possible — but it is insulting to Mongolians for Taiwan to claim that country as part of its territory.
Even Beijing makes no claims to Mongolia.
Another reason for removing such unrealistic territorial claims is that, as Fang said on Monday, the military is “loyal to the Constitution.”
Since retired air force general Hsia Ying-chou (夏瀛洲) last month defended Chinese incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, it is possible that other top-level military officials feel similarly — and they could hardly be faulted given the claims in the Constitution.
What if the Chinese People’s Liberation Army were to attack and Taiwanese generals refused to respond on the grounds that its actions were constitutional?
The Constitution also puts allies in a difficult situation. To recognize the Republic of China, Taiwan, they must entertain ridiculous territorial claims.
Arguably, the DPP is focused on the wrong issues when it comes to Taiwanese identity and a national consciousness. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the Chinese aspects of Taiwanese identity, nor is there any real problem with the nation being called the “Republic of China.” There are two Koreas and there were once two Vietnams. There are also many aspects of Canadian and US identity that are drawn from their British backgrounds.
However, the big issue with regard to Taiwanese identity and the nation’s diplomatic efforts is its unrealistic, anachronistic territorial claims.
The DPP should propose a referendum to remove references to China and other areas not under the nation’s administration from the Constitution. If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can hold referendums on highly controversial issues, why not the DPP?
If Taiwanese were to vote “yes” to remove the references, then hardline KMT supporters could hardly argue against it.
After all, Taiwan is a democracy.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS