Ten years ago, even in the face of Chinese missiles, the people of Taiwan directly elected a president for the first time. The New York Times commented that -- largely unnoticed by the rest of the world -- Taiwan had quietly grown from an international orphan into a strong and powerful youth. That same year, Freedom House elevated Taiwan to its list of free countries.
Everyone hopes that this strong youth and newly free country can find a new voice with which to speak to the rest of the world. But that new voice hasn't emerged yet, or it is too weak and has been drowned out by the clamor of the old guard.
Taiwan's historical development has hit a snag, prompting Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) to say in 2000 that the next five years would be the key for Taiwan to overcome its problems and take control of its future.
It has now been six years, but the country is still stuck. Politicians, the media and academics are still singing the same old tune, stirring up problems over non-issues.
First is the debate over opposing versus moving toward Taiwan independence. This discussion is another remnant of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (
Because of Chiang's policy to destroy the CCP and unify China, encouraging direct contact with the Chinese "bandits" and advocating Taiwanese independence were capital crimes. In order to rid Taiwan of one-party rule, reformers chose to move the country toward liberty, democracy and independence.
Today, the one-party state is gone and Taiwan is an independent constitutional democracy. Independent countries are not necessarily free countries, but free countries are always independent; this is simply the nature of things.
Taiwan has also given up its policy of recapturing China, though some people still presume to carry on the decades-old idea of opposing Taiwan independence.
Who in his right mind would say that this isn't stirring up a problem over a non-issue?
By the same token, Taiwan is already an independent, modern and free country, so it is a moot point to talk about "moving toward" those things. Doing so is nothing but a wish to turn back the clock.
Second, there is the question of amending Taiwan's territorial claims.
What is Taiwan's territory? Isn't it the 36,000km2 of land on which 23 million people live -- Taiwan, the Penghu Islands, Kinmen and Matsu? During Chiang's rule, the US worried that his drive to retake China would drag the US into a war.
The Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Republic of China clearly says that national territory encompasses Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. Some of Taiwan's younger generation may not know that the US signed this agreement with Chiang to prevent former Chinese president Mao Zedong (毛澤東) from "liberating" the territory controlled by Chiang, and blocking Chiang from "restoring" Mao's territory in China to Chiang's government, thereby creating the "special state-to-state relationship" that now exists.
Regardeless of the territorial definitions, nothing will change this fact.
Third is the issue of changing Taiwan's official name. Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China. Taiwan is a free country and China is not. The "first republic" -- the Republic of China -- was established in 1911. It was replaced by the "second republic" -- the People's Republic of China -- in 1949.
Today's Taiwan was born as a new and free country during the world's third wave of democratization in the late 20th century, so why all the talk about forming a "second republic" in Taiwan?
This is yet another reality that doesn't revolve around pan-green or pan-blue politicians and their wishes. Some people don't want to add the word "Republic" to Taiwan's name, as if withholding it would withhold Taiwanese sovereignty.
People at the other extreme object to that idea, saying that adding the word will represent Taiwan independence and that Taiwan independence irreversibly means war. The ruckus has prompted warnings from China and no small amount of concerns from the US.
All over the world, countries have taken their names from the name of the land they are built on without adding a word to imply nationhood such as "republic."
After colonizers in Canada earned their independence, they called their country Canada. The name United States of America was originally intended to encompass the 13 states that had been established on the North American continent at the time.
Now the US has 50 states, but when was the last time anyone heard calls within the US to give it a name that more explicitly defines it as a nation or change its territorial definition?
Instead, it is communist countries that worry over national titles.
Obvious authoritarian dictatorships in China and North Korea have both incorporated words like "people's republic" and "democratic republic" into their official names. Ukraine was called the "Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic" during the Soviet era, but actually got rid of the "Republic" to become just "Ukraine" after independence.
Therefore the debate over giving Taiwan a title that more clearly defines its nationhood is more hot air over a non-issue.
These tired and empty debates don't go away, but only emerge in different forms over time. When the old politicians, political parties, legislatures and media keep bringing them up over and over again, they are attempting to destroy this free young country.
If Taiwan wants to save itself from being sucked into this whirlpool, it needs to have a new voice.
But where is it? Some people have been searching among the same old politicians and parties, but looking there will turn up nothing. They've grown accustomed to their old song and can't find a new one.
Even the Democratic Progressive Party, just 20 years old, has aged before its time and fallen into step with the dinosaur-like Chinese Nationalist Party.
We can't count on politicians from the old establishment to create a new political party and remake the legislature. We need to let people who haven't stepped onto the stage before speak out and usher in a new era.
Let's make the 2007 legislative elections and the reformed legislature Taiwan's first step towards a new life. The people of Taiwan want to compose a new song and sing with a new voice.
Ruan Ming is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Marc Langer
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