Premier William Lai’s (賴清德) rhetoric regarding the nation’s de facto independence continued to snowball yesterday, with the pro-unification New Party urging the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to join it in taking Lai to court over an “offense of sedition.”
During his first Legislative Yuan appearance as premier on Tuesday, Lai defused politically sensitive questions from KMT lawmakers regarding his stance on the independence-unification issue with a carefully calibrated response.
“We are already an independent country, the official title of which is Republic of China [ROC],” Lai said, adding that the nation does not need a separate declaration of independence.
Aside from threats of legal action, Lai’s comment also attracted criticism from several pan-blue heavyweights, who accused him of jeopardizing national security and cross-strait security with his public proclamation of support for Taiwanese independence in his capacity as premier.
Is Lai’s statement really that unprecedented?
Actually, it is not. Some of his fiercest critics have themselves used similar rhetoric to describe Taiwan’s sovereignty status, including KMT Vice Chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and former premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺).
After Scotland voted in a widely watched referendum to remain in the UK in September 2014, Jiang, who served as premier under then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the KMT, shrugged off calls for Taiwan to hold a similar plebiscite to decide its future because “the ROC is already an independent country.”
Hau made a similar remark in July 2015, following Beijing’s passage of a controversial security law stipulating that “safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, including people in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.”
Hau argued at the time that Taiwan was not similar to Hong Kong or Macau, as “the ROC is an independent country,” urging China to recognize the existence of the ROC.
In March, Ma used similar rhetoric when asked about Taiwanese independence during a public conversation in New York with his former Harvard Law School advisor Jerome Cohen.
“Have you ever heard of a country declaring independence twice? We were an independent country back in 1912 — how can I declare independence again?” Ma said at the time.
Without further context, Lai’s remarks seem no different from those made by the three KMT politicians. They all contained the same elements: “Taiwan and the ROC are mutually exchangeable names” and “it is an independent country.”
However, those who follow Taiwanese party politics closely would probably be able to detect differences in their underlying intentions.
On the one hand, Lai threw in the term “ROC” for the apparent purposes of toeing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s official line and casting a veil over what he truly supports, which is likely de jure Taiwanese independence.
On the other hand, the three KMT politicians were attempting to preserve the nation’s official title of ROC, while creating room for maneuver that allowed them to stay on Beijing’s good side and assuage the public’s growing desire for formal independence.
The independence-unification issue has for a long time been a game of words.
An obvious example is the so-called “1992 consensus,” which allegedly allows both sides of the Taiwan Strait to have their own interpretation of what “one China” means.
China has cunningly avoided providing a clear definition of the “1992 consensus” to create the false impression that it is open to the idea of Taipei and Beijing having different interpretations of “one China.” However, that is nothing but a ploy to subtly bring Taiwan in line with its “one China” principle.
There is no need to make a fuss about Lai’s comments. In the cutthroat world of politics, the smart ones never give up on their desires; they simply learn how to put them into clever words.
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