A senior figure in the pan-green camp has recently caused a bit of a storm, urgently pushing his idea of the “constitutional consensus” (憲法共識). For him, a Taiwanese consensus cannot but bear the imprint of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). He believes the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution represents the major consensus in Taiwan at this moment. Eloquently put, albeit sounding like President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) protecting his version of the Constitution.
For too long, Taiwan has been branded by the mark of the KMT.
In the beginning, it was former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son and successor, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), insisting the KMT represented the legitimate government of China, and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Chinese communists, saying that “gentlemen cannot co-exist with thieves.”
They wanted to “retake the mainland” and re-establish their rule there, and while in Taiwan did everything they could to suppress the Taiwanese independence movement. Following an eight-year hiatus after the transition of power to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, Ma sprang back with the reinstated regime, hoisting the Constitution high and distorting it as he pleased, spouting on about “one China,” selling Taiwan out to Beijing and opposing Taiwanese independence.
When we refer to the imprint of the KMT today we are actually talking about the mark left by Ma. This mark is how he is trying to sacrifice Taiwan’s sovereignty with policies that kowtow to China. Taiwanese KMT supporters did not originate it, and neither do they necessarily agree with it.
The shadow Ma casts over Taiwan is suspiciously similar to that thrown by his masters in Beijing. This is hardly surprising, since they are all wearing the same clothes. They are all trying to make Taiwan a part of China, robbing the Taiwanese people’s right to their own identity and to deciding their own destiny. Do the majority of Taiwanese really sign on to the version of a Taiwanese consensus that bears the imprint of Ma, that has the shadow of the Chinese communists and eschews the idea of Taiwan with the status of an independent country?
If we are to go in search of a Taiwanese consensus, it would be so much better to go looking for the imprint left by Taiwanese, rather than the combined mark of the KMT and the DPP, or even the blot of “one China.”
Ma is twisting the Constitution to mean what he wants it to mean, thinking he can pull the wool over the eyes of all Taiwanese. He believes that if he repeats his own interpretation enough times, the public will come to accept it, that they will eventually get used to the idea of him selling Taiwan’s sovereignty down the river.
He is wrong. Many people in Taiwan are no longer willing to take it lying down. What they want is a government that will safeguard their country’s sovereignty, that will oppose China’s attempts to annex their country and that will not kowtow to Beijing as Ma is doing.
Ma is hell-bent on offering Taiwan on a platter to the country that spawned him. The DPP ought to unite all of the people in this country who no longer want to be considered a colonized people — and this includes those who support the KMT — against Ma and his circle, who are helping the KMT betray Taiwan.
If Taiwan is to protect its independence, its freedom and its democracy, what it needs to concentrate on is what ordinary people have achieved, and not what they have inherited from the KMT elite.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS