During a forum at National Taiwan University, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) called himself the first gongan (公安) to visit “Mainland China,” referring to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) term for “police.” He added that he opposes “Taiwan independence,” because the phrase “Taiwan independence” cannot be found in the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) and dared those who advocate Taiwan independence to go ahead and change the Constitution.
This ruffian way of talking is not new to Taiwanese. During his visit to China in March, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) held on to the ROC Constitution, a set of laws written with China’s territory in mind and yet imposed upon Taiwan. Singing the same tune as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Ma has advocated pro-China ideas such as the so-called “1992 consensus,” the “one China” principle and “anti-Taiwan independence.” Hou parroted Ma by adopting a literal interpretation of the ROC Constitution and referring to himself as a gongan, an act that underscored his ignorance and hypocrisy.
Anyone familiar with the ROC Constitution will know that “Taiwan independence” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and neither is the word “Taiwan.” Neither would they find any article detailing national territory as covering Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and Taiwan, and a population of 23 million people.
Article 4 stipulates that “the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered.” By this logic, the PRC should not have “broken away” to become an independent nation either.
Ma, a former anti-Chinese Communist Party activist, went back on his word by opposing the term “Taiwan” or “ROC (Taiwan),” and dared anyone with a second opinion to change the ROC Constitution.
Hou tried to imitate Ma, but did it poorly when he “accidentally” advocated for “Taiwan independence” by claiming that the ROC has a population of 23 million and a territory composed of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
By putting the ROC and Penghu, Kinmen, Taiwan and Matsu, as well as 23 million citizens in the same basket, Hou is supporting the idea that “the two sides across the Taiwan Strait should not be subordinate to each other,” an ideology that is labeled as “type B Taiwan independence,” namely the “two-state” theory proposed by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1999, which characterized Taiwan and China as two different jurisdictions. Under this ideology, Hou’s ideology aligns with the Democratic Progressive Party’s stance that it is up to Taiwan’s 23 million citizens to decide its status as a sovereign state.
The Constitution should have been an up-to-date modern pact, not a series of anachronistic articles. The ROC Constitution is already a historical document, and it was written with China as its main territory in mind. In January 1949, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) sent a telegram to reprimand then-Taiwan provincial governor Chen Cheng (陳誠): “Taiwan’s legal status and sovereignty, before the Japan Peace Conference, were only a trusteeship of our country [China]. How could it be clearly stated as the last bastion of communist suppression and the basis for national rejuvenation?”
According to the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. However, the treaty ceded the islands to no one, and neither did the ROC Constitution list Taiwan as its territory. Only the PRC Constitution “clearly claims” Taiwan as its territory. As Hou mixed up gongan for police, perhaps he is also mixing up his reading of the ROC Constitution.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Rita Wang
RSS