Taiwanese politics is intriguing and fast-changing. Outsiders may not be surprised that the US government keeps pressuring President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to soft-pedal his move to "cease the function" of the National Unification Council and "cease the application" of the National Unification Guidelines. But they might be surprised by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) embrace of independence as an option for Taiwanese people -- which it did in an advertisement in the Liberty Times.
The right to hold national referendums was long considered by the KMT as a political taboo and analogous to de jure independence. But on Sept. 23, 2004, the party seconded the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's proposal to include the right to referendum in future constitutional reform. Now KMT members raise the idea of holding referendums to decide key government issues.
Now that the democratic value of "letting the people decide" has begun to take root in Taiwan, the gap between the pan-green and pan-blue camps on the independence-unification dichotomy will become increasingly meaningless. The notion that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country will become the common ground in Taiwanese politics.
As a result, Taiwanese will be able to judge a national leader with more scrutiny.
As perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan today, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) recent handling of the unification council and guidelines issue and his wavering stance on unification or independence reveals a lack of decisiveness and integrity.
Chen is judged by many as a politician who criss-crosses the political spectrum and pushes the envelope in cross-strait affairs. It is sad to see that Ma is incrementally adopting the A-bian model -- which is to think of running a country as like running a campaign.
Ma's unilateral decision to make independence an option for the KMT reflects a typical one-man decision, with little or no consultation even within his own party.
Former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) expressed his objection to such a proposal. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who suggested accepting independence as an option for Taiwan during the KMT chairmanship election, also challenged Ma's one-man decision-making style.
From the perspective of Taiwan's democratic consolidation, for the KMT to respect the people's right to decide their own fate and future relationship with China is a great leap forward. However, whether Ma is sincere in respecting the people's right to freedom of choice remains in doubt.
To avoid being seen as tilting too much toward Beijing, Ma's camp has attempted to use the debate on Chen's proposal to abolish the unification council and guidelines to attract pro-independence voters.
As the most popular potential candidate for the pan-blue camp in the 2008 presidential race, Ma has no choice but to reveal his stance on cross-strait relations. Regretfully, Ma's recent remarks on Taiwan's "status quo" and its relations with China demonstrate a lack of recognition of the cross-strait reality, as well as disrespect for democratic principles.
To keep in step with public opinion, Ma chose to take the heat now, regardless of the pressure he might face from within his own party. People can be expected to back Ma for the next presidency if he continues with this approach.
But is Ma really doing all of this out of concern for the national interest? Can he counter the pro-unification forces from the pan-blue camp? Or is Ma an opportunist politician who only has his eyes on stealing votes from the DPP?
The voters will decide.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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