On Feb. 18 at the Munich Security Conference, Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Wang Yi (王毅) said that Taiwanese independence forces are incompatible with peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
His remarks restated what Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Huning (王滬寧) said when he met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Andrew Hsia (夏立言): “Taiwan independence is incompatible with peace.”
The use of “incompatibility” is reminiscent of a 2008 constitutional interpretation, which addressed a law that prohibited advocating “communism” or secession, ie, Taiwanese independence.
In 1998, economist and politician Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) and others applied to the Taipei Bureau of Social Affairs to register the Goa-Seng-Lang Association for Taiwan Independence (GATI) as a local civic organization.
Their application was rejected, as at that time, Article 2 of the Civil Associations Act (人民團體法) stated that the “organization and activities of a civil association shall not advocate communism or secession from the state.”
Chen filed an administrative appeal, but the Executive Yuan dismissed it. Chen then sought a constitutional interpretation, and on June 20, 2008, the Constitutional Court (then known as the Council of Grand Justices) issued Interpretation No. 644, in which then-grand justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) said in his interpretation: “Due to the idiosyncrasies of our history and politics, the Republic of China and Taiwan as two signs are either equal to or inclusive of each other; different interpretations can be made based on different political standpoints.”
In his interpretation, then-grand justice Lin Tzu-yi (林子儀) said: “If the advocacy of either communism or secession, through the means of organization or promotion, can attract some people and win over a great number of people, and successfully convince the majority of the people to support it, be it the realization of communism or the secession, the support for that advocacy should be recognized as the choice of our society, rather than an imminent danger.”
In other words, freedom of thought is guaranteed by the Constitution, and the choice made by the people of their volition should be considered first.
If the government wants people to opt for its advocacy, it should win their support, rather than prohibit them from renouncing the advocacy. As the saying goes: “The nation is founded upon the people and established for the benefit of the people.”
The “incompatibility” as stated by some, if considered alongside Interpretation No. 644, should be reviewed again.
Shih Ya-hsuan is an associate professor in National Kaohsiung Normal University’s Department of Geography.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS