It's hard to understand the logic and attitudes behind the argument that this nation's passports should only bear the words "Republic of China" (ROC) but not "Taiwan." It is beyond doubt that people living in Taiwan are different from those living in the PRC.
If the legislature or the opposition parties continue to claim that the ROC's territory includes China, this will certainly be an international joke. If they are really following the doctrine of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Many Taiwanese traveling abroad have been mistaken for PRC citizens when they show their ROC passports. The government certainly needs to print the word "Taiwan" on passports in order to prevent such confusion, as well as the unnecessary trouble that ensues. This is also what the international community expects. Why should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continue to hesitate over the matter?
The fact that some ministry officials continue to drag their feet on the matter reflects the fears they are harboring toward independence. They fear that by putting "Taiwan" on the passports they may be replacing "ROC" with "Taiwan" as the name of the country, and cause Taiwan to become "independent." Beijing may react strongly to this by sending out its military forces to attack Taiwan or its outlying islands. Is it going to be that serious? The government has the responsibility to make its citizens clearly distinguishable from PRC citizens in the eyes of the international community, and the passport is a good official instrument for doing this. Fears about a possible Chinese attack over this are far-fetched.
Remember the missile crisis of March 1996? Taiwan got through the incident intact, didn't it? So why worry so much about Beijing's response? The government should do what it must to safeguard the interests of its people, even if that means military risks. It can't take its cues from Beijing.
Beijing has never given up its authoritarian habits. It has never been willing to face up to reality. Decisions are always made by a handful of top cadres who have no concern whatsoever for the fact that sovereign power rests in the hands of the people. For Taiwan to try to communicate with them would be like trying to entertain an ox with a harp. Beijing's recent actions at the World Health Organization and the WTO show that Beijing has always viewed Taiwan as an enemy. It has invariably opposed anything that benefits Taiwan. So why should we care about the likes and dislikes of Beijing?
On the other hand, didn't the KMT advocate Taiwan as an independent sovereign state when it was in power? How come it has begun to echo the PFP's "one China" dictum since losing power? Does the KMT think it is worthwhile to pressure the government to accept the "one country, two systems" model just to win back power? Hasn't anyone learned a lesson from Hong Kong's painful experience?
The government should implement policies that are supported by public opinion. Surveys conducted by the foreign ministry show that more than 50 percent of the public supports putting the word "Taiwan" on the nation's passports. There's no reason for the government to keep wringing its hands over this issue. It should show some determination and do what is right for the people of this nation.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS