Celebrations for Double Ten National Day were held in Taipei, New York, Australia and several other places around the world. While Taiwanese people were enjoying the festivities celebrating the 94th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (ROC), they seemed to forget a fundamental question: is there really a national title called the "ROC," and does it really exist now?
First, let us look at the past 94 years. From the ROC's founding to Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) Chinese National Party (KMT) to the regime's retreat to Taiwan, the name ROC had been the national title for China for 38 years. When the title ROC was first established in 1911 in China following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, it had jurisdiction over 35 provinces, excluding Taiwan (which had been ceded to Japan by the Qing government). Then, for 56 years after 1949, the title of ROC has referred to the government in Taiwan, with no jurisdiction over China.
In other words, the title ROC currently exists in a place (Taiwan) that was originally not under its jurisdiction, and the time it has been in a foreign place (56 years) exceeds that of its founding place (38 years). Is this reasonable? Is there another example of such a situation anywhere else in the world?
Second, during the four-year period between Japan's surrender in 1945 to 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established a new regime in China, the ROC -- which used to govern the whole of continental China -- in fact ruled over Taiwan for only four years.
There are even controversies over this period of sovereignty arising from the fact that Japan's renunciation of Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not specify who would take over the government of the territory.
Some people argue that since Taiwan was ceded to Japan by the Qing government, when Japan relinquished it, it would have been given back to the ROC, the successor of the Qing Dynasty.
But, with the same logic, Beijing can also say that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defeated the KMT, and the ROC was replaced by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 in China -- therefore, China should be qualified to inherit the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan.
But, most Taiwanese people think the vagueness over whose jurisdiction Taiwan fell under in the San Francisco treaty was intentional. The intention was to return Taiwan to its owners, the people of Taiwan. Such thinking has some legal basis for the theory that Taiwan's international status has yet to be determined.
But however we look at it, the continued existence of the title "ROC" is a ridiculous phenomenon. And, given the aforementioned examples, it is not difficult to see that the ROC is simply an illusion.
The cross-strait peace advancement bill (
If the KMT and the PFP intend to recover the mainland, end the CCP's one-party regime and restore the sovereignty of the ROC, then their policy has some validity. But, the situation is entirely different, for they are willing to allow Taiwan to be conquered by China rather than allow the country to adopt "Taiwan" as its national title. This is the key issue.
On Oct. 10 this year, it was ridiculous to see the public still celebrating Double Ten National Day because they, in fact, are celebrating something that has not existed in Taiwan for 94 years.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese dissident writer based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS