Reading the Taipei (“No Laowai Need Apply”) Times this morning, I saw the following front-page headline: “Tsai blasted for ‘government-in-exile’ remark.” Kuomintang responses include “serious blunder,” “shocking,” and that Tsai was “possessed by Chen.” King Pu-tsung said Tsai should apologize. DPP member Hsiao Bi-khim defended Tsai by saying her statement was taken out of context.
About context: Is that remark in any way context dependent? Let’s test it. “That joint has excellent beef noodles. By the way, the ROC government is a government in exile.” “I’d like to continue this enjoyable conversation about cricket and abstract expressionism, but I gotta go answer the call of nature. I leave you with this: The ROC government is a government in exile.” Dunno, man, it doesn’t seem likely that it needs a context. I think it’s pretty much a standalone, self-contained unit.
And if words have any meaning at all, the statement is on the order of certitude of the roundness of the earth. I could understand someone criticizing it for its mildness (i.e., “She shoulda said ‘fugitive,’ not ‘exile’”). But why would the DPP even have to make excuses for it? And why does the KMT believe it can score points with the electorate by criticizing it?
I think we all know that the DPP is a revolutionary party. They wish for the overthrow of the Rep of China and the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan. The Rep of China still technically believes that it is the rightful ruler of Taiwan and the Pescadores ( both of which the ROC considers part of China) and the China mainland, which happens to be under the rule of the renegade CCP. The KMT is synonymous with the ROC and being over 50 years locked out of China remains only in control of Taiwan and the Pescadores but still harbours the view of an
“eventual” return to the motherland and/or some accomodation with the CCP.
We have two parties with very different political platforms and aims.
The KMT is able to garner Taiwanese votes by promising stability and status quo and no forced annexation with the CCP run China. The DPP preaches on the platform of mistrust of the KMT and their possible “secret dealings” with the CCP run China.
Roughly half of Taiwan supports the DPP while half support the KMT but almost everyone wants the status quo or to keep apart from the CCP run China. Very few want unification with the CCP run China.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Or maybe a non-government in exile![/quote]I thought about writing that, but I didn’t want to seem too severe.
What intrigues me is the idea that these KMT members are saying this sort of thing because they figure that at worst it won’t hurt them with the electorate to say it, and that it might even help them to say it.
I also think I’m beginning to understand why the DPP/dangwai’s idea of taking bold action usually gravitates towards such acts as “J’accuse Elmer Fung of Plagiarizing His Dissertation!” or “Sound the Cow Tongue Alarm!” Maybe certain things just aren’t supposed to be discussed (which also means that nothing is supposed to be done about them).
Of course, the most obvious explanation would be that many issues are affected directly or indirectly by fear of that big, bad, mean and possibly crazy son of a gun across the Straits. Maybe that’s why certain buck-a** nekkid emperors are relatively little remarked. And maybe that’s why the KMT has plenary, or near-plenary, power.
On this map, Mongolia is simply called 我們的 (“Ours”). America is, of course, “Evil Empire.” Japan is “Porn Everywhere,” England is “Hogwarts Magic School Here,” and China is “Fraudulent Goods and Swindling Groups’ Exporting Country.”
On this map, Mongolia is simply called 我們的 (“Ours”). America is, of course, “Evil Empire.” Japan is “Porn Everywhere,” England is “Hogwarts Magic School Here,” and China is “Fraudulent Goods and Swindling Groups’ Exporting Country.”[/quote]
I just find it funny that officially, the ROC still claims China, and even much more than just China. They actually have more territorial claims than the PRC does! Of course, the government is not actively pushing that sort of agenda, but it’s still on paper
The former Japanese Envoy to Taiwan said something about Taiwan’s status being uncertain (true) and was sent back to Japan. Should the KMT send Tsai to Japan too?
Of course the ROC govt under its present charter only controls the islands of Taiwan , Pescadores and a few rocks. And because it claims to control , or rather “own” China, it is therefore a Govt in Exile.
Perhaps the proper solution is that the KMT and the CCP should jointly “own” and “Operate” a new Rep of China on China itself and Taiwan should be an independent entity or therefore Rep of Taiwan (or Rep of Formosa). Of course the DPP intends to be THE govt of the new Rep of Taiwan and will turn into what the KMT was and rule it with an iron fist. All of which is contrary to what the ROC (on Taiwan/Pescadores) has become under the (revised) KMT.
Or perhaps it should be governed by the USA as a Territory of the USA and the DPP disbanded or sent to compete with the KMT and the CCP in the NEW CHINA?
“Government in exile” is hardly appropriate, since the ROC controls, and is located on, some of its claimed territory. I would call it a rump government.
The Allies never recognized any transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC government, from 1945 to 1952, and certainly not with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) as of April 28, 1952 … or anytime thereafter.
Hence, Taiwan does not belong to the ROC.
Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until the coming into force of the SFPT. Do the math … when the ROC relocated its central government to occupied Taiwan in Dec. 1949 it became a government in exile.
References:
See Sheng v. Rogers (1959) for a summary of the situation up to 1959: Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China. taiwanbasic.com/state/usg/shengvsro.htm
The Allies never recognized any transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC government, from 1945 to 1952, and certainly not with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) as of April 28, 1952 … or anytime thereafter.
Hence, Taiwan does not belong to the ROC.
Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until the coming into force of the SFPT. Do the math … when the ROC relocated its central government to occupied Taiwan in Dec. 1949 it became a government in exile.
References:
See Sheng v. Rogers (1959) for a summary of the situation up to 1959: Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China. taiwanbasic.com/state/usg/shengvsro.htm
On the other hand the US govt has never professed any desire to “own” or “operate” Taiwan in any way shape or form. And they invited (far as I can recall reading) and transported high ranking ROC govt personnel to attend to Japans surrender of the island. When Japan declared itself washed of the island.
So that could be an implied or tacit transfer of ownership. And the fact that, what, sixty years later the USA still lays no claim to the island speaks of its refusal to “take up” ownership of same and thus relinquishing its rights thereof.
Mr Hartzell has some nice legal precedents. The KMT still claims China is part of the ROC. Doesn’t show that the KMT is very rational. Taiwan (ROC) is a very different place today than the ROC of CKS in 1949. No one would have mistaken that for a democracy. What Tsai Ing-Wen was pointing out is that many things have changed over the past. Taiwan has moved from an autocracy (dictatorship) to a democracy. The government of the ROC was at that time a government in exile. The government now (whatever name you want to give it) is a democracy. To get back on the subject, how can her statement be “shocking” unless you choose to ignore 60 years of history?
It was shocking in that some things are not openly discussed by politicians. LIke the Japanese envoy’s statement that Taiwans status is uncertain. Again another commonly known truism, but not discussed openly. But TW society should be mature enough that all these things can and should be discussed OPENLY.
[quote=“mrthumb”] … Taiwan (ROC) is a very different place today than the ROC of CKS in 1949. No one would have mistaken that for a democracy. What Tsai Ing-Wen was pointing out is that many things have changed over the past. Taiwan has moved from an autocracy (dictatorship) to a democracy. The government of the ROC was at that time a government in exile. The government now (whatever name you want to give it) is a democracy. To get back on the subject, how can her statement be “shocking” unless you choose to ignore 60 years of history?[/quote] Many people bring up the subject of “democratization.” However I fail to find any references in any legal essays, articles, or dissertations to the effect that the legal status of a “government in exile” can be affected in any way by “democratization.”
According to the views expressed above, the ROC would have to move back to Nanjing and resume governance there, in order to cease being a government in exile.
I don’t see what difference “democratization” makes . Please explain.
open frank and informed discussion on this very matter has been quashed in Taiwan by the KMT since forever. School texts and lessons avoid it, gloss over it, or present the current situation as legally correct, thus brainwashing the population from the beginning. Anyone who dared discuss these matters in the 50s and 60s was sent to Green Island where they were maimed, tortured and executed, thus setting a strong example to others of just what the allowable discussion areas were. After some liberalisation of policies in the 80s, the KMT still controlled all the media, so there was again no discussion of it in the public arena. And the KMT still effectively own much of the media, not directly, but by proxy or by the political leanings of the scions of the party who became the eventual media owners in Taiwan. Journalists continue to self-censor themselves to avoid raising the issue. The KMT pillories, jeers at, and belittles any politician or commentator who has the ‘audacity’ and the balls to raise the issue, such as Tsai.
And then there’s the looming spectre of the big bully across the strait, passing their useless laws against secession - hard to secede from a country you are not part of, and totally irrelevant - useless laws that are used anyway by the KMT to keep their ducklings in line. The very same KMT that once fought tooth and nail against the CCP, but now emasculates the armed forces of Taiwan and engages in surreptitious ‘reunification by the back door’ arrangments such as the ECFA, business traveler visa arrangements for the moneyed descendants of the original diaspora, and diplomatic kow-towing in every literal sense of the word to the government in BeiPing.
