What is the raison d'etre of the government? Is it to appease the PRC or to serve its own citizens? If the answer is clear, then we can simply ignore what Beijing thinks about the government's plan to add the word "Taiwan" to the cover of ROC passports. It is -- to use one of Beijing's favorite phrases -- an internal affair.
As long as the people think the addition of the word "Taiwan" to their passports will help them when traveling then no party or lawmaker who loves this country should oppose the proposal.
There have been many reports over the years from the government's representative offices overseas as well as first-hand accounts about Taiwanese unhappy that customs and immigration officials in other countries have mistakenly thought that they were from the PRC -- and consequently eyed them with suspicion that is usually accorded citizens of that country. The most recent example took place in Germany, where several Taiwanese were humiliated by local officials who thought they were PRC nationals. The government cannot allow such incidents to continue -- especially as the problem is so easily remedied.
Beijing is sure to launch another media offensive against the plan, condemning the government for pushing "Taiwan independence." But there is no reason to pay any attention to whatever vitriol that may come from the Chinese Communist Party.
There is equally no reason to heed complaints from those political parties and lawmakers who voice China's viewpoint by accusing the foreign ministry of trying to stir up domestic turmoil and increase cross-strait tensions. For example, KMT legislative caucus leader Liu Cheng-hung (
It's hard to understand why the opposition parties and pro-unification people dislike such a well-crafted proposal. The fact that the government does not plan to eliminate "Republic of China" from the passport shows it is listening to public opinion. If adding "Taiwan" will make travel more convenient for Taiwanese -- and at the same time satisfy the pro-independence camp -- why oppose it.
This appears to be an arrangement that should keep everyone happy. Nevertheless, whether the proposal will gain approval from the opposition-dominated legislature is still a question open to debate.
Putting "Taiwan" on passports simply reflects the fact that the ROC is based in Taiwan -- a fact long trumpeted by the former KMT government. It will also allow this country to be more clearly differentiated from China. Such a measure will help people in this global village clearly see the impressive political, economic and cultural achievements of an independent Taiwan. This will give the public more dignity and self-confidence in the international community, while at the same time preventing damage to the nation's dignity.
If the opposition ignores public opinion and blocks legislative approval, then the electorate should respond accordingly when they go to the polls for next year's presidential election.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS