Taiwan is a de facto independent nation — anyone who doubts it should check the requirements in the Montevideo Convention — but it needs a new Constitution. The framing and promulgation would take time, effort and thought, so what should be done?
The first step is to examine why Taiwan’s existing Constitution does not fit. It was constructed in another place (China) at another time (1947) and for another country — the Republic of China (ROC). It was a dream held by another people and one that never quite survived China’s civil war.
However, some adherents of that dream still use the Constitution to stake a claim not only for Taiwan, but also, wishfully, for China.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949, but some remaining party members fled to Taiwan, where they imposed their “losers’ constitution” on Taiwanese.
Three years later, the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty should have sorted out the mess, but it did not. As a result, Taiwan was caught in a time warp and the KMT diaspora built a bogus one-party state. (I have extensively covered the inadequacies of that 1952 treaty in past opinion pieces.)
Time eventually caught up with the ROC. It took a severe hit on the international stage in 1971 when the followers of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) — not Taiwanese — were expelled from the UN. A more fatal blow was dealt by the US in 1979, when it moved its embassy from Taipei to Beijing — and it finally began using the name “Taiwan” instead of “ROC.”
Unfortunately, the “ROC” name remained with Taiwan, although more like stale and moldy cheese, along with the outmoded ROC Constitution. These are the shackles that Taiwan has had to deal with over the past 75 years, but particularly since becoming a full-fledged democracy in 1996.
Constitutions do take time to rewrite, change and revise, so what should Taiwan’s democracy do in the interim? A good first step would be to create a new national flag.
Flags’ features are not permanent. Nations can and do change them with regularity amid the ongoing realities of their “imagined communities.” There is nothing sacred about flags. They should represent change and change accordingly.
Over the past two decades, as Taiwan has enjoyed its democracy, about 20 or more other nations have either altered their flags or created new ones.
However, Taiwan remains in its time warp, saddled with a flag that dates back to a vintage 1928 China. It was a time when Taiwan was a colony of the Japanese Empire and the KMT was seeking to define itself.
Denmark has one of the oldest flags among existing nations and the US has changed its flag more frequently than any other nation. In the US, a star is added to the flag every time a new state joins its union — US citizens do not even vote on it.
Some Taiwanese have said that because of the ambiguity of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Taiwan could become the 51st state of the US — but that star should be left for political technocrats to debate.
Taiwan needs a flag that represents the nation — all of Taiwan, not just the KMT diaspora that fled across the Taiwan Strait with past baggage.
Canada has one of best examples of a flag change. Its national flag went from a Union Jack to a Red Ensign and then, in 1965, to its iconic red maple leaf.
Then-Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson was responsible for that change, even though his preferred design was not chosen, insisting that the Canadian flag have no link to the British Empire and be free of British imagery. If Canada could break with its past, Taiwan certainly can.
Taiwanese must ask some basic questions about their flag. What is its purpose? How does it represent all of the people of Taiwan and their history? Why should the flag of those who lost the Chinese Civil War represent the many who never participated in that war and wanted self-determination?
Taiwan’s existing flag is described in Article 6 of the outdated Constitution.
Some will say: “Oh, but you should not touch the Constitution.”
However, it has been amended and changed so many times that those who made it in 1947 could easily ask: “What happened, and where are Tibet and Mongolia?”
Anyone who still has doubts about changing the outdated Constitution should consider that it was received and established by the now-defunct National Assembly. How many can remember the National Assembly, define it or list its duties? Now, the constitutional Examination Yuan and Control Yuan are destined for extinction.
What Taiwanese wants a flag that perpetuates the 228 Massacre? Who wants a flag that represents those who imposed the White Terror and martial law on Taiwan for four decades? Is it not time to put all of that to an end?
Taiwan needs a flag that represents the democratic imagined community that is emerging here. It needs a flag that represents all of Taiwan’s political parties and its many contributing movements, such as the Wild Lilies student movement in 1990, the 2008 Wild Strawberry movement and the 2014 Sunflower movement. It should also represent those who suffered for democracy on Green Island and at other prisons.
What about Taiwan’s Aborigines who influenced the great Austronesian migrations? Should its flag not represent them?
A contest could be held in which citizens put forth their ideas on what type of flag would best represent this new imagined and democratic community. Who could object to such a contest — or a new flag?
Certainly some of the old guard KMT — whose dream of controlling China has gone with the wind — would object. Their out-of-touch flag still gives them the fictitious right to claim that they are “high-class mainlanders” (高級外省人) stuck in Taiwan.
Regarding the US, could it object? Washington refuses to use the name “ROC” and has replaced it with “Taiwan.” Would America be so hypocritical as to object?
As for the Chinese Communist Party, would it object because the KMT flag represents the enemy that it defeated? Or would Beijing, contrary to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, try to argue that this justifies its false claim to Taiwan?
Would any other nations object, as if they had a right to interfere with the choices of the Taiwanese citizenry? If Taiwan’s flag changed, these nations might finally be forced to come to terms with the difference between the “one China” principle and a “one China” policy.
Many flags have flown over Taiwan. It is time for its citizens to stake their justifiable claim to the new reality that is here.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) spoke of the “new Taiwanese.”
Although former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) tried to co-opt that phrase and twist its meaning for his own purposes — his cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement and his party were soundly defeated afterward — a new Taiwanese spirit does exist, and it needs a flag that best represents its struggle for and achievement of democracy.
Taiwan also needs a new Constitution and a new name, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step — and the first step could easily be a new flag.
The rest would flow much more easily after that, and Taiwan’s new imagined community would find its proper direction and momentum.
Reality beckons. Taiwan needs that new flag. It needs a flag that represents its unique and real history and captures the true Taiwanese spirit.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
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,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS