03.03.05

Vincent Siew resigns

Posted in News at 4:53 pm by David

Vincent Siew, one of few the good guys in Taiwanese politics, has resigned his post as a vice-chairman of the KMT. Although it is not unexpected (he has taken a lower and lower profile in the last year or so, and threatened or tried to resign before), the timing is interesting. Resigning with immediate effect is a sign that he wants to avoid getting involved in the impending battle between Ma & Wang for control of the KMT.

Siew’s main claim to fame is as the premier of Taiwan from 1997 to 2000 - when he ran (unsucessfully) for Vice President with Lien Chan. His promotion to premier by (then President) Lee Deng Hui was one of the reasons that James Soong split from the KMT to form the PFP.

When he was premier, he gave an interview to Asiaweek in 1997 which is quite interesting from the prespective of what has changed and what has stayed the same in (the Taiwanese persepective of) cross-strait relations.

Did President Lee in his recent comments to Western media essentially declare Taiwan independent?

No, not at all. What President Lee said is a clear expression of the political reality in this country. What he said is that the Republic of China [ROC, Taiwan's official name] has been a sovereign state since 1912. What he said is a statement of fact. But you people have misunderstood when he says that Taiwan is Taiwan and that we are a country. What he said is that the Republic of China is a sovereign state. So our policy is clear. It has not changed at all. You foreigners, when we say “Republic of China,” you say “Taiwan.” Our official name is the “Republic of China,” but I don’t see many foreign newspapers citing our name as the “Republic of China.”

Back then, he was complaining about people confusing ‘Taiwan’ and the ‘ROC’. Nowadays, Chen Shui Bian is promoting this confusion. Apart from that, I could imagine Chen saying exactly the same thing.

To many, your policy seems ambiguous.

[After 1949,] both governments claimed to represent the whole of China. In 1991, we amended the Constitution to abolish martial law and accept the reality that China has been separated into two political entities. We exercise jurisdiction of the territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government has effective jurisdiction over the mainland. We accept that and we don’t claim to represent all China. On the other hand, we are also seeking the peaceful reunification of China. We expected their side to give the same response. But until now, they have not agreed to renounce the use of force against us. They claim to rule all China, including Taiwan, which is totally unacceptable to us. The PRC never for a single day ruled Taiwan. We won’t agree that we are their province. Not at all. It will still take a long time for the mainland to transform its system into one of freedom, democracy and prosperity. We have to wait and see.

Again, there’s one sentence which is different nowadays: ‘On the other hand, we are also seeking the peaceful reunification of China’ has been converted into ‘we do not rule out reunification’. Quite an important distinction … but again there is plenty of overlap outside this.

Do Taiwan people clearly understand your mainland policy?

This policy has been set for seven to eight years. A great majority of people support it. About 30% of the people are at the extremes. One extreme is for immediate reunification by any means. The other extreme is for immediate independence. But 70% of the people prefer the status quo, and the status quo is the ROC within the context of a one-China concept but not according to their [the PRC's] definition. The U.S. has its definition of one China. The PRC has its definition. We also have our definition.

I’m guessing the 30/70 split he mentions there is as true today as it was then (although the 30% extremist faction is more concentrated at the independence side nowadays). However, back then there was acceptance of an ROC definition of ‘One China’ - although this was always deliberately vague, it clearly includes two ‘political entities’ (neither of which represents all of China) from his previous answer. I suspect that, while Chen would balk at using the term ‘One China’, the substance of the definition wouldn’t be that different.

Plenty of the above statements are exactly the same - but in the delicate world of Taiwan politics, the changes are as significant as the parts that have remained the same.

Permalink