The nation's first televised election debate on Saturday represented a major advance for our democracy. The format of the debate was important, but even more important was the fact that it provided information on the candidates' campaign platforms, allowing voters to make an informed choice.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Lien said: "Our stance is very clear. The two sides [Taiwan and China] should set aside the issue of sovereignty, increase exchanges and interaction, accelerate economic development and improve the livelihoods of the people. If we must talk about `one China,' then `one China' means the Republic of China."
Lien's plan to set aside sovereignty -- as a basis for cross-strait interaction and increased exchanges -- is dangerous. Sovereignty is a composite concept that includes a country's territory, people, constitution and so on. When a nation sets aside its sovereignty, in even the most innocuous context, it enters a vacuum in which the human rights and property rights of the people as well as the integrity of national territory can be harmed at the very moment other countries raise differing views regarding the country's jurisdiction. A country setting aside sovereignty is equivalent to it announcing its own demise.
Sovereignty must never be set aside. One must be resolute in defending it.
Taiwan must not engage in cross-strait interaction at the expense of its sovereignty. Once it denies its sovereignty, it will in effect have raised a white flag and surrendered. It loses a basis for negotiating with China.
It is utterly reprehensible for Lien to advocate this position. The nation's 23 million people should recognize that Lien's motive for wanting to set aside sovereignty is nothing more than political victory, and that he is perfectly willing to be an agent of capitulation to bring this about.
During the 2000 presidential election, Lien praised former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" dictum as a pragmatic stance compatible with cross-strait political realities. In 2001, however, Lien called for a cross-strait confederation. Last year, Lien returned to the old "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" formula. Now he is saying we should set aside our sovereignty.
During the 2000 election, People First Party Chairman James Soong (
A head of state must defend his or her country's sovereignty. Otherwise, the people of that country risk being bashed to a pulp at the hands of other countries. Taiwan must elect a president who can maintain this country's sovereign status quo, and who will not allow it to be changed for the worse even under the pressure of threats or military posturing. This is the most basic requirement of a national leader, a requirement that Lien seems to scorn, or else barely comprehend.
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