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
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
RSS