DPP to decide fate of independence clause today
By Katherine Wei, The China PostTAIPEI, Taiwan -- The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be announcing its conclusion over cross-strait policies today, despite the common belief that many party bigwigs still hold different opinions.
January 9, 2014, 12:00 am TWN
Before the party's weekly Central Standing Committee meeting, Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) recounted the past nine meetings the DPP's China Affairs Committee (CAC) has held regarding the cross-strait policies. “Over 600 people have attended these discussions and have contributed their opinions to our CAC. The collected opinions are sent to the committee members 10 days prior to the original due date, and hopefully we will have satisfactory results after joint efforts of brainstorming,” said Su.
Bigwigs Hold Different View of Cross-strait Policies
Former Premiers Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), Yu Shyi-kun (游錫堃) and DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) all double as CAC members. “There ought to be a public survey based on the people's outlook on the CAC's new conclusion, and if the approval rates are higher than the previous policies announced, we will implement the new decision,” said Hsieh. “If we were only going to vote to approve of minutes from past meetings, there should be no disputes. However, I am still rooting for 'Two Sides, Two Constitutions' (regarding policy toward the mainland).”
Hsieh had proposed an ideology which he dubbed “Two Sides, Two Constitutions” in 2011, meaning that Taiwan and China are governed by each side's distinctively different constitutions. The ideology is superior to the “One China” concept, under which both China and Taiwan claim to be the only existing “China,” he said. Hsieh claims that his concept allows Taiwan the dignity of a country with its independent constitution and clarifies that Taiwan is, in fact, not the People's Republic of China.
Ker was prompted by local media about whether he would once again bring up the controversial suggestion he had made several weeks ago, when he proposed that the DPP freeze its “Taiwan Independence Clause,” to which Ker merely said “There's no hurry, we'll see how it goes tomorrow.”
If the DPP's agenda is a return to power, it will be necessary to show potential voters, China and the world that it is capable of maintaining cross-strait relations with a global outlook, said Ker, who also suggested that the clause could be “unfrozen” in the future.
In response to Ker's suggestion, Yu replied that no matter what the DPP is in favor of, it would concern freedom of speech. “As for a new 'Resolution on Taiwan's Future,' the old one is sufficient enough. It clearly states (our beliefs), so we don't really need a new one.”
“If we were to change the DPP's advancements, all gained in these past 20 years, and change the resolution that aims to preserve Taiwan's sovereign rights or the people's happiness, I will hold my differing opinion within the party,” Yu concluded.