A few days ago, some PFP legislators and their supporters gathered at the Legislative Yuan, holding placards saying "Oppose `one country, two systems,'" and voicing support for the Hong Kong people's struggle for freedom.
This was meant to show support for the Hong Kong people's action against anti-subversion legislation which would be mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law, if passed.
This scene has inevitably created confusion. One wonders if the PFP is against "one country" or against "two systems."
If the party is opposing "one country, two systems," then does it advocate "one country, one system" or "two countries, two systems?"
According to the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), "two systems" means a special administrative region can have its autonomy and exercise a system that is different from China's.
In this respect, "two systems" is quite compatible with "maintaining the status quo" as advocated by the PFP. There is not much for the PFP to oppose. If the PFP is not opposing "two systems," is it then opposing "one country?"
Since it is supporting the Hong Kong people's struggle for freedom and opposing "one country, two systems," this "one country" is apparently not the Republic of China. Rather, it's got to be the People's Republic of China (PRC).
If the PFP is against "one country" under PRC rule, does it mean it supports "one country" under ROC rule? This reads like a fairy tale from the previous century, doesn't it?
Now back to reality. PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) once proposed "integration under a one-China rooftop." He appeared to be echoing from afar the "one China" stance advocated by the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
However, if we take a close look at the blue camp's cross-strait policy platforms -- from KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) confederation dictum to Soong's "one-China rooftop" to the recent "two-China status quo" proposed by former education minister Mao Kao-wen (毛高文) -- they all substantively oppose "one country." Regardless of the wording, this is the case from the perspective of independent sovereignty and equality.
In this regard, their position is primarily the same as former president Lee Teng-hui's (
In election time, we always hear the mathematical war of words about "how many Chinas, how many countries" or "how many Chinas, how many systems." Due to their history and identity, the blue camp frequently gets trapped in the "one China" or "one country" cage. This contravenes reality, and the blues have a struggle with which to tangle in their hearts.
However, from Mao's "two-Chinas status quo" to the PFP's "oppose `one country, two systems,'" we can see that the blue camp has gradually revised its platform on cross-strait relations.
I think the cross-strait problem lies not in the questions of "China or no China" or "how many systems." The point is that Taiwan's mainstream public opinion simply cannot accept "one country." As long as this crux is not resolved, it would be useless to say much more.
Shen Fu-hsiung is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Francis Huang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS