At the recent press conference for his new book, President Chen Shui-bian (
The problem with their argument is that both Chen and his predecessor, Lee Teng-hui (
But could it be that Chen is in the wrong because Beijing has been insisting that the "one China" consensus of 1992 is the one and only foundation for the development of cross-strait relations? On this point, Taiwan's opposition parties have been acting like Beijing's mouthpieces. The "one China" principle and the 1992 consensus as Beijing understands them merely represent the political objectives that Beijing wants to achieve.
At a press conference during the recent APEC summit in Shanghai, China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (
"One China, with each side making its own interpretation" is a semantic trap set up by Beijing. It is meant only for domestic consumption within China and for deceiving the people of Taiwan. Internationally, there is only enough room for one China, not for different interpretations of it.
For Taiwan, whether or not to accept "one China" is a matter of life and death. It is a question of whether Taiwan wants to accept "one country, two systems" and become a local government. For the people of Taiwan, this question is a choice between democracy or authoritarianism, human rights or despotism, rule of law or rule by whim. Certainly, for both the president and the people of Taiwan, the answer to Beijing's offer is "no." Taiwan's electorate must make its voice heard at the polls on Dec.1 -- by stripping the pan-blue camp of its legislative majority.
That the PRC and the ROC coexist is reality. How can anyone say that any consensus has been reached on "one China?" Beijing can bring up "one China" as an issue to be discussed, but to make it a precondition? To demand that Taiwan must surrender before any negotiations can begin? Don't even think about it, China -- nor its Quislings in Taiwan.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then