Proper Nomenclature Beneficial to Cross-Strait Relations

Proper Nomenclature Beneficial to Cross-Strait Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9, 2011

In his Chinese New Year speech, President Ma Ying-jeou gave government officials specific instructions. In all future documents, they must refer to the other side of the Taiwan Strait as "the Mainland," or as "Mainland China." They must not refer to it as "China." This would avoid confusion over the issue of sovereignty and "two Chinas." It would ensure that cross-Strait relations are based on the constitution. His remarks elicited different reactions from the Blue and Green camps. But in fact this was a simple matter of law, and fundamental to cross-Strait relations. It was what the government should have been doing all along.

Under the provisions of the ROC Constitution, the current cross-Strait situation is one in which "the nation has yet to be reunified." Therefore the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been classified as the "Free Region" and the "Mainland Region." Article One of the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region" states that "This article has been specially crafted to ensure the safety and welfare of people in the Taiwan Region prior to national reunification, to regulate exchanges between the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region, and to deal with such legal matters as may arise," The article explicitly defines the Taiwan Region as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other areas under the jurisdiction of the government. The Mainland Region is defined as "sovereign territory outside the Taiwan Region belonging to the Republic of China." The competent authority in charge of cross-Strait affairs shall be the "Mainland Affairs Council."

Everything, from the constitution, to the law, to government entities, explicitly refer to the other side as "the Mainland." Logically speaking, official documents are the same as the law. Naturally they must accord with the law. They can hardly use concocted names. President Ma reiterated the government's position. He stressed that this was a description of the status quo. This status quo was derived from amendments to the constitution, and from the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region." It has not changed since the establishment of the MAC, despite two changes in the ruling party.

DPP legislators have alleged that President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration demeaned our sovereignty. Their allegations are groundless. When the DPP was in power, then Premier Yu Shyi-kun was questioned in the Legislative Yuan. Yu ordered the various government agencies to refer to the other side as "Mainland China" or "the Chinese Communists." Yu Shyi-kun had no choice. As the chief executive of the Republic of China, he was duty bound by its constitution and laws. Besides, the other side refers to us as "Taiwan." We refer to it as "the Mainland." Who can complain? We have not repudiated the Beijing authorities' jurisdiction. But neither have we recognized their sovereignty. How exactly have we "demeaned" ourselves?

Following the five cities elections, the DPP held lively debates, in which they discussed new cross-Strait policies. Former DPP chairman and premier Frank Hsieh proposed "One Constitution, Different Interpretations." He proposed a return to his long held "One China Constitution." The DPP may refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But it can not avoid the spirit of "One China, Different Interpretations" when dealing with cross-Strait affairs. The ROC Constitution, after all, implies "One China." On Taiwan, the term "China" means the Republic of China. On Taiwan, this is the lowest common denominator regarding cross-Strait policy.

Scholars have commented on President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration. They consider it a gesture of goodwill toward the mainland. They also think it may appeal to swing voters. The two may go hand in hand. Official documents are law. They represent the government's position, When government officials prepare official documents, or are questioned by legislators, they must do so in accordance with the law. They must refer to the other side as "the Mainland" or "Mainland China." Basically they must reaffirm the Republic of China. They must not repudiate the policies of the Republic of China "prior to reunification." The Mainland fears that Taipei's attempts to assert its sovereignty may pave the way for Taiwan independence. The government must dispel any such concerns. On the other hand, the government must firmly uphold the Republic of China's sovereignty. This is its public responsibility. The government must not neglect national sovereignty, merely because it is attempting to strengthen cross-Strait relations.

For the public on Taiwan, the constitution should be treated like air and water, essential to our national survival. It is not necessary to pay it constant lip service. But cross-Strait relations are increasingly intimate. Historical disputes over the two sides' sovereignty have yet to be resolved, If repeated declarations reduce controversy, why not? Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan spoke of Taiwan's seven major interests. But she failed to stipulate "under the framework of the ROC Constitution." As a result, scholars wondered whether her proposal was "unconstitutional." People were incredulous. Beijing characterized this as a "minor matter." Just to make sure, Ma Ying-jeou reiterated the government's position, He gave Lai Shin-yuan support. Cross-Strait exchanges are currently in full swing. The various ministries may be forced to deal with cross-Strait matters. The Lai Shin-yuan incident may become a problem for all government officials.

Cross-Strait exchanges have been going on for 24 years. People to people exchanges are warmer than ever. People refer to the other side using all sorts of names. These include China, the Peoples Republic of China, the Beijing authorities, the Mainland, Mainland China, even the Chinese Communists. The man in the street may not understand the distinction between "jurisdiction" and "sovereignty." The government is not about to tell private citizens what terms they should use when referring to the other side. Take the calendar for example. The private sector has long used the Western calendar for publication dates. But the government is not the private sector. All official documents must use "Year of the Republic" dates. When dealing with cross-Strait affairs and policy, the government must abide by the same laws. Only then can it avoid misusing words and generating controversy within a complex political environment.


對等稱呼 有利兩岸關係平順發展
2011-02-09 中國時報

馬英九總統新春講話，特別要求各部會未來的公文書，一律要稱對岸為「大陸」或「中國大陸」，不能簡稱其為「中國」，避免產生「兩個中國」的主權混淆，也讓兩岸關係回歸憲法架構。這番談話，引起藍綠不同解讀，但這其實是兩岸關係最簡單的法律基礎，符合政府一貫政策應有的作為。

根據中華民國憲法增修條文，兩岸處境仍屬「國家未統一前」，因此分別以「自由地區」與「大陸地區」定位兩岸。而根據《台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》，第一條開宗明義就是「國家統一前，為確保臺灣地區安全與民眾福祉，規範臺灣地區與大陸地區人民之往來，並處理衍生之法律事件，特制定本條例。」條例並明確定義台灣地區是指臺灣、澎湖、金門、馬祖及政府統治權所及之其他地區，而大陸地區則是指「臺灣地區以外之中華民國領土」。至於處理兩岸事務的主管機關名稱則是「行政院大陸委員會」。

從憲法到法律，從法律到機關，都非常明確的定位對岸為「大陸」，照常理，機關公文書形同法令，當然得依法而行，豈能自創名稱？馬總統重申政府立場，強調這是對現狀的描述，這個現狀從憲法增修條文、《兩岸人民關係條例》制定、陸委會設置以來，即使歷經兩次政黨輪替，都沒改變。

民進黨立委指責馬英九總統的宣示是矮化主權之舉，完全沒有道理。因為民進黨執政時期，當年的行政院長游錫?就在立法院總質詢時表明，要求各部會稱對岸為「中國大陸」或者「中共」，游錫?沒有其他選擇，既身為中華民國最高行政首長，恪遵憲法和法律，就是他的職責。何況對岸稱我為「台灣」，我稱對岸為「大陸」，誰曰不宜？我們不否認北京當局的「治權」，但沒承認其「主權」，又何來矮化自己的問題？

五都選舉之後，民進黨也熱烈討論新的兩岸論述。前民進黨主席、行政院長謝長廷提出「憲法各表」，回歸他過去一貫主張「憲法一中」。盡管民進黨不承認「九二共識」，但也無法迴避以「一個中國，各自表述」的精神，處理兩岸事務。畢竟中華民國憲法就是「一個中國」，這個「中國」在台灣就是中華民國，這是台灣內部對兩岸政策紛歧中的最大公約數。

學者評論馬英九總統的宣示，認為是對大陸表達善意的做法，也有爭取中間選民的政治意涵，這兩種作用完全可以並行不悖。公文書是法律，是政府立場，官員在公文書，甚至國會備詢時，依法而行，稱呼對岸為大陸或中國大陸，基本上是重申了中華民國的立場，不否定中華民國「統一前」的各種政策作為，緩解大陸對台灣爭取主權作為可能導致獨立的疑慮；另一方面，政府堅守主權立場，也是對國人最負責任的做法，政府不會因為強化兩岸交流，而輕忽國家主權定位。

對台灣而言，憲法理應如空氣與水，是國家存在的必需品，不必每天掛在嘴上宣示。但兩岸關係愈趨頻密，兩岸主權的歷史糾葛卻猶未解決，如果多一次宣示，多減少一些爭議，有何不可？就像陸委會主委賴幸媛提出台灣七大利益論，只因為少說了一句「在中華民國憲法架構下」，竟引發學者質疑「違憲」，令人不可思議，馬英九以確定對岸稱謂這件其實非常簡單的「小事」，重申政府立場，也為賴幸媛緩頰。而賴幸媛事件，在目前兩岸交流全面開展，各部會都有機會觸及兩岸事務的情況下，可能會成為政府官員的共同問題。

兩岸開放交流廿四年，民間往來愈趨熱絡，對於對岸的稱呼，從中國、中華人民共和國、北京當局、大陸、中國大陸、乃至中共，林林種種。民間並不會嚴格區分「治權」與「主權」的差異，政府也很難約束民間到底要用什麼名詞稱呼對岸，就像談到紀年，民間出版品早已常用西元紀年。但政府不同於民間，所有的公文書紀年還是得用「民國」，在處理兩岸事務與政策時，政府同樣得須依循法律基礎，才能在複雜的政治論述中，避免因為言詞誤用造成的爭議和困擾。