字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2013/07/30 23:53:14瀏覽229｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
| Position of KMT has not changed
South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) | Thursday, April 12, 2012 Lawrence Chung's article on the current debates over "one country, two areas" in Taiwan politics ("Every which way but one", April 4) is a thorough piece, but contains a simple misunderstanding. This concept - in Kuomintang (KMT) honorary chairman Wu Poh-hsiung's talk with President Hu Jintao in Beijing, on March 22 - was not an aggressive proposal seeking to "redefine" the cross-strait relationship, as Chung described it. It was just an explanation for Hu to understand the status quo in Taiwan's constitution after the fundamental amendment in 1992. Hence, it is not a response to the "unification pressure from China", as a pro-independence local newspaper claimed. As the former spokesman of the ruling KMT, I agree that this debate was partially raised by the over-simplification of the term "one country, two areas". Its complete version should be "one Republic of China (the formal name for Taiwan), two areas (including Taiwan area and mainland area)". More importantly, this constitutional concept is in line with the 1992 consensus - one China with different interpretations - because the "one China" in our interpretation is the "Republic of China (ROC)". Ironically, this constitutional framework was once supported by the people who now lead the opposition to it. Huang Kun-huei, chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union, said our mainland policy was "one country, two areas, three phases" in 1992 when he chaired the Mainland Affairs Council. Tsai Ing-wen, former leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), not only helped install the concept "one country, four areas" into Taiwan's legal system in 1993, but also in 2003said that the idea of "one country, two areas" corresponded to the ROC constitution when she was minister of the Mainland Affairs Council. Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou did not propose anything new to Beijing. Taiwan's government still bases its cross-strait policy on the ROC's constitutional framework. Instead, the only thing vague in this dispute is the DPP's stance. Does it support the current constitution or want a new one that rejects "one country, two areas"? Charles I-Hsin Chen , London, England |
|
| ( 時事評論｜國際 ) |
