During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
Some people feel that this declaration follows the spirit of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The resolution also declares that Taiwan's future shall be decided by the people of Taiwan, with the only difference being the ultimate goal.
This comparison oversimplifies the fundamental differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy. It also ignores an issue even more crucial than the Taiwan independence option, namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public's decision.
The Resolution on Taiwan's Future was passed by the DPP's National Congress on May 8, 1999. It advocates the idea that Taiwan's national sovereignty rests with the nation's citizens, that it is a fully sovereign nation with the national title of the Republic of China and it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China.
In contrast to this, Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy.
There is also the issue of the mechanism used to allow the public to decide. Should Taiwan's future be decided by the members of the National Assembly as in the past, by a unification or independence government through a presidential election, or in a referendum? There must be a clear direction. The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan -- in other words, to implement a referendum on sovereignty.
Ma obviously has no clear stance on this issue. Ma should declare his position on the question of whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum.
Prior to the public's making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public's decision will be respected.
Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision. According to the DPP's charter and the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat.
We have still not been given a clear answer to this question.
Simply put, the question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma.
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture and Information Department.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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