The two main candidates in next year's presidential election -- President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) -- have agreed to hold a debate on the issues of referendums and a new constitution. This is a ray of sunshine amidst today's negative campaigning. Finally, candidates can put negative campaigning aside and debate their visions for the nation's future.
Voters have lost their appetites recently because of quarrels in the media, the groundless criticisms that fly between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and the dispute over the controversial Special Report VCDs. But Chen and Lien are now bringing the campaign back on track. Constitutional reform, referendums, and cross-strait relations are the topics that people really want to hear the candidates talk about. We hope that the debate will set a high standard for the presidential election campaign.
Although a great ideological divide separates the blue and green camps, their opinions on the constitution issue have converged. Lien's first reaction was to call the idea of a new constitution "Boring!" Later he suggested that a constitutional amendment committee be set up following the election. Recently he proposed a three-step plan for a new constitution.
In form, Lien's current proposal is a copy of the DPP's longstanding call for a new constitution, but it differs in its spirit. This may cause public confusion about the blue and green camps' constitutional proposals. A debate between Chen and Lien might allow the public to clearly see the two proposals' advantages and disadvantages.
The DPP emphasizes a democratic process for constitutional changes. It favors a bottom-up approach without any conditions, and adheres to the principle that the decision should be made by the people in a referendum. Issues such as the nation's name, flag and borders would have to be resolved separately.
The KMT, on the other hand, has allowed a core group of policymakers to decide that a new constitution could not touch on the issue of the nation's name and flag.
The KMT has also proposed a faster schedule than has the DPP, but the KMT wants to amend the Constitution through the Legislative Yuan, elect members to an extraordinary National Assembly to add provisions for a referendum on the Constitution, and use the referendum procedures in the amended Constitution to complete the process. Such a process would be too complicated and would contain too many variables.
Taiwan's political problems -- past, present and future -- boil down to the China problem. Sooner or later, the Constitution must clearly differentiate Taiwan from China.
Chen and Lien both say that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Chen describes Taiwan and China as being "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, while Lien says they belong to one China -- the Republic of China (ROC).
Although Lien's statement is consistent with the KMT's China policy, he must explain why there is only one China when both the PRC and the ROC are sovereign states. Most nations in the world have recognized the PRC for half a century, but Lien now wants to persuade them that there is no PRC, but only the ROC. This is wishful thinking, and it runs counter to international understanding of the situation.
We hope that Lien will be able to present an effective argument to persuade not only the Taiwanese people but also China and the international community that they ought to accept his one China theory.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
RSS