Parliamentary candidate Chen Zhuyin responded to the question. What really needs to be tested is how she pushed the legal status quo all the way to a political conclusion. Claiming to be Chinese or advocating for unification cannot omit evidence for the subsequent argument.
Chen Zhuyin recently registered to run for New Taipei City's 11th District Assembly on the recommendation of the Labor Party. She said that Taiwan's social divisions and cross-strait deadlock "all stem from resisting China and protecting Taiwan." (Picture taken from Weibo, Threads@musiclin_1107))
She cited that the "Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China" still distinguish "free areas" and "mainland areas." This is true; but this only shows that the current legal system adopts special regulations for both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and it cannot be inferred that the Constitution has endorsed "peaceful reunification." Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 328 explicitly considers the scope of the "inherent territory" to be a major political issue and not to be defined by the constitutional interpretation agency. The special legal relationship is directly translated into the national identification of the land and people of the mainland. What is added in the middle is personal political choice, not an answer automatically derived from the constitution.
The bigger problem is that she said that Taiwan's social divisions and cross-strait deadlock "all stem from resisting China and protecting Taiwan." This cause and effect is missing the most important half. The white paper "Taiwan Issue and China's Unification Cause in the New Era" released by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of China and the State Council Information Office in 2022 still lists "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems" as the basic policy, and clearly states that it does not promise to give up the use of force. If cross-strait tensions are only counted as Taiwan's political slogans, but the other side's public reservation of force options is removed from the causal formula, the argument will naturally be incomplete.
The Beijing white paper does not propose arrangements for retaining the name of the Republic of China, the current national flag, or Taiwan's independent military. The picture shows the Hanguang exercise. (AP file photo)
She also said that the country's name, system, flag, and even Taiwan's maintenance of its own military "can all be discussed." This is still just her negotiation imagination. What really needs to be tested is whether the other party accepts it. Beijing's public plan emphasizes that "one country" is the premise of "two systems". The white paper does not propose arrangements for retaining the name of the Republic of China, the current national flag, or Taiwan's independent military. One's own wishes cannot replace the other party's stated conditions.
The democratic system allows the people to openly advocate unity and identify with the Chinese people. Candidates for public office should accept the test of whether their political opinions are consistent with legal texts, cross-strait policies and realistic conditions. "Why can't we talk?" is not enough to constitute a peace plan. If the other party does not accept the conditions she listed, how is she going to protect Taiwan's existing democratic system and people's choice?
(The author is a retired person)
