It is true that elections often drive people crazy. And when it comes to the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan, anything crazy and even illogical can happen. Politicians can simply throw away their long-time adherence to certain viewpoints and change their tune, without further exploration of what led to the about-face.
A classic example is the pan-blue camp's candidate, Lien Chan (
Lien's recent embracing of the "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum and his inclusion of Taiwan's independence as one of the options for Taiwan's future relationship with China displayed the pan-blue camp's acceptance of main-stream opinion in Taiwan. Nevertheless, the failure to explain the rationale behind such a sudden change of heart on the issue of national identity showed Lien's lack of responsibility as a potential national leader.
While publicly embracing pragmatism and moving away from his consistent policy of unification with China, Lien admitted that he is not capable of making a decision to decide the future of both sides of the strait in this particular election. That's why he will leave the issue of cross-strait relationships to the next political generation.
Lien insisted on maintaining the status quo and opposed the idea of immediate independence. To some extent, Lien's new position on cross-strait relationships is a manifestation of the majority opinion, that is, to maintain an independent and sovereign statehood. However, the real intention here is a tactic to put aside any talk of "one China" before the March election. As Lien himself said, "it is not good campaign language at this point."
Therefore, the strategy to delay or to postpone the sovereignty issue has nothing to do with whether the issue can be solved at this moment, but rather centers on Lien's way of interpreting the so-called "1992 consensus," or the notion of "one China with individual interpretation."
Lien made two huge mistakes by incorporating this strategy. First, without elaborating on the reasons behind the change, Lien owes the voters a candid explanation of why the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) abruptly accepted the idea of independence as one of the possibilities for future cross-strait relations. Moreover, is there already consensus on this from within the pan-blue camp? Or is it simply an electoral scheme to avoid being labeled as pro-unification? Can Lien stick to such a promise once he is elected?
Second, Lien, in his shortsightedness, overlooked the need for a national leader to provide 23 million Taiwanese with a vision for future cross-strait relations. To be a responsible leader, Lien should clearly identify his position, like his counterpart Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has outlined his. The voters will make their decisions based on the policies and blueprints that the candidates offer.
A political leader should take the temperature and monitor the pulse of the times in which he lives. With humility, he must tailor his style of advocacy according to his findings. He must make sure his style matches the public's mood. The fact is, more and more people are in favor of the status quo but recognize that Taiwan is separate from China. This is the actual status quo.
The next president of this country bears the responsibility to recognize this fact.
Most importantly, the key to the future cross-strait relationship lies in the fact that the people of Taiwan have the right to decide their own destiny. Leaving such a tough question for the next generation to tackle, as Lien supports, is not something that our generation should do.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS