The main theme of the "defensive referendum" proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is finally beginning to get some attention. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan (李應元) said on Tuesday that two examples of good topics for a referendum would be the "one country, two systems" model and on whether China should dismantle the missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Lee's timely clarification finally clears the doubts in Taiwan and abroad surrounding Chen's suggestion. It is obvious that the two topics now broached by the DPP do not touch on the unification-independence issue, nor do they conflict with Chen's "five noes."
Opposition to the "one country, two systems" model and anger over China's armed threats is common to all Taiwanese people. Using a defensive referendum to alert the international community to this situation and to win international support is a legitimate way for Taiwan to break through China's wall of threats. We do not believe that friendly countries, including the US, will oppose such action.
The DPP's fight for the referendum legislation -- which was ultimately successful once the blue camp agreed to support it, creating the first referendum legislation in the Chinese world -- allowed Chen to demonstrate to the Taiwanese people the bravery, experience and determination that a national leader should possess when leading Taiwan.
The blue camp's legislative majority meant the Referendum Law (公民投票法) was far from perfect, with many articles restricting the power of the people. Nevertheless, we finally have a legal basis for holding a referendum.
One year ago, when referendum legislation was promoted by no one except DPP Legislator Trong Chai (蔡同榮) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) lawmakers, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance made only sarcastic remarks about it, such as "a referendum law will bring disaster to the Taiwan Strait." Were it not for the DPP taking the initiative, who would have expected that Taiwan finally would get a Referendum Law?
Representing the old KMT power, both the KMT and the PFP have played a feudal, reactionary role when it comes to constitutional reform. During the KMT's rule, political reform was always initiated by the tang wai (黨外, "outside the party") forces and later the DPP. The price was imprisonment and political persecution of many democracy activists.
Now, even though the KMT and the PFP are in opposition, their reactionary instincts remain unchanged. At one point, they strongly resisted enacting a referendum law. Even Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) made the absurd accusation, by quoting a Taiwanese businessman, that the political environment in which the government was promoting referendums was like the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
As the ruling DPP continued to press the issue, however, the KMT-PFP alliance finally found no other way out than to present its own version. Although the DPP's version was overridden during the legislative process, the creation of the Referendum Law was a historically significant victory for the people of Taiwan.
Judging from the several township-level referendums conducted recently, rational and peaceful voting has finally replaced the previously frequent bloody protests by local residents. It only goes to show that Ma's remarks reflected his reactionary mentality. In other words, without referendums, people expressed themselves using violence; now that the referendum exists, they voice their opinions using the ballot.
The birth of the Referendum Law has once again highlighted the lonely, difficult role the DPP has played throughout the nation's development toward democracy. In the face of China's military threats, and carrying the great burden of opposing the blue camp, the DPP is now leading the Taiwanese people on its march forward.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS