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as the administration’s arguments rely on a public that remains ignorant of a document that is commonly seen as outdated and irrelevant.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.
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