Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has made it known that he does not plan to attend the official Double Ten National Day commemoration on Tuesday next week. He gave his reasons on Facebook on Monday, objecting to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) using “Taiwan National Day” as the English name of the event.
Ma has a point. The official title of the nation is the Republic of China (ROC). One might argue that having the word “China” in the title makes it difficult to distinguish Taiwan from the People’s Republic of China in the minds of overseas observers, but national day is a commemoration that is overwhelmingly for the benefit of the domestic audience.
Even though the word “Taiwan” only appears in the English name for the event, the phrase “Taiwan National Day” is not beyond the English understanding of the majority of Taiwanese adults. The government should represent the whole country, and many Taiwanese remain proud citizens of the ROC.
The day is known as “Double Ten” because it falls on Oct. 10 every year. This is because it commemorates the start of the Wuchang Uprising on Oct. 10, 1911, a revolt that led to the establishment of the ROC. For several years now, pro-Taiwan independence advocates have called for a “Taiwan National Day” to be established on a different date that commemorates an event more closely tied to Taiwan’s post-colonial emergence as an independent nation. For them, commemorating Taiwan National Day on a day linked to the establishment of the ROC makes little sense.
This would be the third year that the government has used the English name Taiwan National Day. Ma has objected on both prior occasions, yet still attended. This year he said that he can no longer be seen to endorse a decision that clearly has Taiwan independence written all over it, not just because he wants to defend the existence of the ROC, but because he views it as a dangerous provocation to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
That he takes a different approach this year is his prerogative, and probably has more to do with the presidential election in January.
That he accuses the government of provoking the CCP when he has little to say about the military intimidation and economic coercion ordered by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is deeply problematic.
The government could allot a different day to celebrate a Taiwan National Day, stop celebrating the ROC founding day or have both. As the second choice would be against the wishes of a significant portion of the electorate and indeed the Constitution, it should be avoided until a referendum is held on the matter or the Constitution is changed. Neither of these will happen any time soon given precedent and the real risk that they would result in a military response from China.
In the event that there was a referendum on changing the name of the ROC to Taiwan or redrafting the Constitution, if considerations of the CCP’s response were removed and given the results of polling on the public’s self-identification as Taiwanese or Chinese, there is a strong possibility that the nation would change its name and create a constitution that more accurately reflects today’s reality.
As far as Ma’s objections are concerned, the elephant in the room is the considerable shift in Taiwanese attitudes and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) inability to win the argument of whether the country should be known as the ROC or Taiwan. His position is increasingly out of touch with the public will.
Perhaps he would be more amenable to following Tsai’s formulation of what Taiwan is, and use the English title “ROC on Taiwan National Day.”
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
RSS