It is a sad day when one begins to question whether this administration has ever actually read the Constitution. You might have heard about it. It is the document that details what the government can and cannot do, and serves as this nation’s highest legal authority.
Because if they had, hypothetically speaking, read the document, they might have been left scratching their heads after failing to find the city of Nanjing in its articles. And then they might have been left even more confused after failing to find a single article that mentions where the capital of the ROC should or should not be.
This failure is because such an article does not exist. It was not present in the constitution adopted by the National Assembly in 1946. It was not present when the document came into force the year after. And it especially was not present in any of the seven revisions since.
In fact, the only time such a reference did appear was under Article 9 of a 1936 draft of the constitution text. The very same draft that explicitly does not mention Taiwan as being part of the ROC.
And so with this in mind, it quickly becomes apparent that Ministry of Education officials were either misinformed, mistaken, or misguided when they sent a letter to high schools requiring them to only purchase textbooks printed “correctly” with Nanjing as the capital of the ROC last week.
However, such an inference about the ROC capital also appears to be part of a trend, deliberate or otherwise, to cast parts of the constitution in support of this administration’s “one China” policy, even when such bases fail to exist.
In October, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) told a Taiwanese delegation to China that there was a constitutional basis behind his position that China continues to remain part of ROC territory.
Yet given the chance, the president might also be pressed to explain how he arrived at his inference, given that the Council of Grand Justices, the highest legal authority for constitutional questions, failed to arrive at the same conclusion under Interpretation No. 392.
All of this is, of course, quite troubling. Especially as the administration’s arguments rely on a public that remains ignorant of a document that is commonly seen as outdated and irrelevant.
And so a better use of education resources perhaps would have been instead to ask publishers to better educate students on the Constitution, so that absurd misunderstandings, like the one made earlier this week, do not take place again.
Vincent Chao is a researcher at the Thinking Taiwan Foundation.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS