Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Wen-chung (
However, the clause had long been rendered moot by the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" (
The PFP and the DPP have fundamental differences -- the biggest being the national identity issue. While the PFP embraces the ideology that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are under the so-called "one China roof" -- which is very much like the "one China" principle, the DPP rejects the "one China" principle.
Due to this difference, the PFP has taken extreme caution in considering the possibility of working with the DPP. In particular, it fears a backlash from its supporters, whom most consider to be a more conservative and radical segment of the pan-blue camp.
However, in view of the enormous public pressure for inter-party cooperation, the DPP has been actively trying to explore the possibility of an alliance with the PFP, and the PFP is also giving it some serious thought. Lacking a legislative majority, this is a necessary step for the DPP to avoid repeating the problems of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) first term, during which policy implementation was made virtually impossible due to the boycott in the legislature.
Despite their differences, this does not mean there is no room for DPP-PFP cooperation. After all, political parties are supposed to have different political ideals and ideologies. Political diversity is precisely the point of a multi-party democracy. Nevertheless, political parties can still work together to the extent that there is overlap between their ideals and ideologies.
Therefore, although the DPP and PFP diverge on the issue of "one China" principle, they can still cooperate on other issues. Legislations dealing with domestic issues and interests would be a good starting point for the two parties to build some critically needed mutual trust.
As for the independence clause of the DPP's party platform, it should not serve as a grounds for the PFP's to refuse to work with the DPP. After all, according to the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," which was approved in 1999, the DPP acknowledges that the name of this country is the "Republic of China." Moreover, the DPP has also subsequently passed a resolution indicating that all resolutions approved by the party, including the "Resolution on Taiwan' Future," shall have the same force as the party platform. More specifically, former DPP chairman Frank Hsieh (
Many members of the DPP have advocated rectifying the name of the country to "Taiwan." However, until that is accomplished, ROC is still the name of this country, a fact that the DPP has not denied. To the PFP, which vows to defend the ROC until the end, the existence of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" should no longer give it grounds to refuse cooperation with the DPP on the account on the DPP platform.
Finally, a political party is the convergence of a group of people based on their political ideals and ideologies. While changing circumstances and times may prompt modification to those ideals and ideologies, members of the party must nevertheless embrace these ideals and ideologies sincerely.
In the present case, changing the platform easily give the impression of selling out one's ideals.
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
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
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS