|
Gazing into the funhouse mirror of the
Constitution
By James Wang 王景弘
Saturday, Feb 27, 2010, Page 8
Since coming into office, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has used the Constitution
of the Republic of China (ROC) to cover up many awkward issues. However, the
Constitution, which never had anything to do with Taiwan in the first place, is
full of flaws and shortcomings. Consequently, it is unable to cover up the most
serious issue — Taiwan’s national status and sovereignty.
A recent press release from the Presidential Office used the phrase “two
countries” instead of “cross-strait” to refer to relations between Taiwan and
China. However, the government later tried to cite the Constitution to explain
the slip-up, saying the ROC is a sovereign, independent country while refusing
to recognize the “mainland authorities” as rulers of a sovereign nation.
This is self-defeating, and the problems will only become more evident the
harder the government tries to cover them up. It is even more absurd than
dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) pipe dream of there only being “one China.”
In international politics, there are no “nations-in-exile,” only
“governments-in-exile.” During World War II, several European nations that were
occupied by Nazi Germany were forced to establish governments-in-exile in
London. However, this did not involve “moving” the nations over to the UK.
Chiang was overthrown by the Chinese people and forced into exile. He retreated
to Taiwan, where he managed to act as the head of China’s government-in-exile.
He found some comfort in the fact that the anti-communist alliance around the
world, up until 1971, recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate representative
of China.
Since Taiwan’s democratization, the government has been elected by the Taiwanese
public and can thus no longer claim to be the Chinese government-in-exile. With
the exception of a handful of mainly Latin American and African countries, no
one recognizes Taipei as the representative of China anymore. When the Ma
administration avoids referring to the relations between Taiwan and China as
those between nations, does it mean that China has “moved” to Taiwan?
When former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) assumed office, he was forced by the
conservative elements within the KMT and the elderly delegates of the former
National Assembly to define Taiwan and China as two “areas” in constitutional
amendments and legislation. Die-hard conservatives even proposed the ridiculous
notion that the Constitution originally drawn up in China could not be amended
at all and had to be “taken back in full to the mainland.”
Unable to change these unrealistic and ludicrous laws, Lee proposed a “special
state-to-state” model to define Taipei-Beijing relations. He and his successor,
former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) also proposed drawing up a new
Constitution and changing the country’s name. They also recognized that the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a country. These ideas reflect reality and
are supported by most Taiwanese. These are facts that cannot be erased by some
deformed constitution.
The ROC Constitution has been amended many times by Taiwanese and currently only
applies to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. The PRC has its own constitution
that is only applicable in China. It is therefore obvious that there is “one
country on each side” of the Taiwan Strait.
However, the Ma administration is following an ill-intended plan as it wants to
make Taiwan, which has not had its status determined in any international
treaties, a part of China and give the PRC the legal rights to claim sovereignty
over it.
James Wang is a media commentator.
|
