In the second televised presidential debate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, said that the “sacred mountain protecting the nation” (護國神山) in cross-strait relations is the “Republic of China [ROC] Constitution.”
Hou also vowed to apply the so-called “1922 consensus” to cross-strait issues. He wants to use the Constitution to buttress the “1992 consensus” and parrot China’s line of calling the “consensus” the “anchor” of cross-strait relations.
Hou and his running mate, Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), have decided to follow in former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) footsteps, doing and saying anything to please the Chinese government. From recognizing the “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, opposing Taiwanese independence, proposing to restart talks on the cross-strait service trade agreement, allowing students from China to work while studying in Taiwan, refusing to internationalize cross-strait economy and trade, and abolishing the conscription reform program, all of these policies have been nothing but actions to please Beijing, while the Constitution is used to cover up for their brazen, shameless agenda. Nevertheless, Hou seems to be missing several fundamental issues.
First, China has been sparing no effort to entice Taiwan to walk into the “one China” trap, so that when Taipei and Beijing both claim that “we are ‘one China’ pivoting toward unification,” the international community would lose its interest in China’s threat against Taiwan or even refrain from exercising measures to prevent Beijing from annexing the nation.
Hou seems to ignore that the majority of Taiwanese reject the “1992 consensus” and that its acceptance puts Taiwan in great jeopardy. In the unification agenda laid out by China, there has never been space for the ROC or Taiwan, or the precious democracy that our predecessors fought for. The “1992 consensus” is the “uncanny valley” tailor-made for Taiwan. Is Hou aware of the significance of his endorsement and how it could affect national interests, or is he merely being manipulated by deep-blue and pro-China supporters?
Second, as Hou said that the ROC Constitution is the “sacred mountain protecting the nation,” his “mentor” Ma had already quoted the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China during his visit to China.
Despite being a former president, Ma made the ludicrous remark: “Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, has never been a country and can never become a country.”
It is a pity that Ma has sunk so low, but it is even more baffling why Hou would want to adopt his stance.
If the Constitution is the “sacred mountain protecting the nation” in Hou’s mind, should not he, to use his favorite phrase, “completely clamp down on” those traitors that auction off our national sovereignty and send the wrong message to the world?
Last, Hou said that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Vice President William Lai’s (賴清德) Taiwanese independence stance is an insurmountable barrier lying in front of cross-strait stability. Who does he exactly have in mind for being the culprit of sabotaging peace and warmongering? The DPP or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
China’s military aggression against Taiwan, or the entire Indo-pacific region, has been acknowledged by the international community as a major source of threat.
The only party that has been undermining peace is China, while the KMT only sings to the CCP’s tune and does not utter a word of protest, and even urges Taiwanese not to fight for their independence, not to strengthen ties with the US or support the DPP’s national defense mentality.
If there is an insurmountable barrier, it is nothing but China’s autocratic rule and contempt of democracy as well as the KMT’s obsequiousness to the CCP that are undermining cross-strait peace. If a presidential candidate cannot tell who is the real culprit threatening cross-strait peace and regional security, how do we expect such a candidate to safeguard our democracy and freedom?
Jethro Wang is a former secretary at the Mainland Affairs Council.
Translated by Rita Wang
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS