A sad day for democracy
It has been reported that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) suggested that cities and counties controlled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) boycott the referendum proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Apparently the KMT believes that, as a major political party, it can compel members who are elected officials to disobey laws with which it disagrees (as opposed to those declared void by legal process).
This is indeed a sad day for democracy in Taiwan. It is the kind of thing that would happen in a one-party system, such as China's, but not in a democracy.
The rule of law governs democracies, not the rule of tyranny. Citizens and workers can express their opinions and can carry out boycotts. Elected officials must do their jobs according to the law, or they will be dismissed or impeached. The only means by which elected officials can address a law with which they do not agree is to follow the legal procedures to have the law changed, whether by legal challenge in court or by amendment or other legal process, or to have its enforcement stayed until its legality has been determined.
To suggest that all KMT officials should simply refuse to obey the law, and boycott a validly called election (or referendum), calls for anarchy. That would also be a sad day for democracy.
I am shocked that a man considered a prime candidate to become president would call for such a lawless measure. What measure of a man is it if he cannot resist the voice of corruption and tyranny, even if it is whispered to him by his colleague, the man in charge? Can he not resist that which he knows is corrupt and wrong?
No one is above the law -- neither KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
If the court were to declare the referendum void, the KMT would be the first to call for the president to desist, but until then it should respect the president's right by law to call for the referendum. That is how democracy works. It is no
surprise that a party which struggled to contain its often terrible oppression for five decades still doesn't get it.
What does it portend for Taiwan if the KMT believes it can simply ignore laws it does not like? Does it mean that if Lien is elected president, he would simply disregard laws he does not agree with? What if the legislature passes a law he doesn't like? Will he just ignore it? Will he enter into agreements with China that he is not authorized to enter into merely because he believes he can disregard laws he does not like?
How a party in opposition behaves is a very good baro-meter of how that party will behave if it is elected.
After five decades of abusive tyranny, and a scant four years in opposition, now faced with the challenges of political disagreements, the KMT is advocating anarchy,
or lawlessness.
What can that possibly mean for the future of Taiwan? And what would happen if the KMT passes laws that the people don't like?
You can be sure if Lien becomes president, the KMT would be the first to jail every single person who disagreed with its policies, in particular those who voice their objections in public, probably
starting with the former president and vice president -- the common indicators of dictatorial power, the tendency to silence the opposition by incarceration. This is the way tyrants behave in a dictatorship.
And the KMT is showing its hand in how it deals with the referendum -- dictatorial and imperious, encouraging anarchy and lawlessness.
Remember that. If Taiwan returns the KMT to power, the people will have no one to blame but themselves for the loss of their freedom and democracy.
It will be a sad day for democracy in Taiwan. And for the world.
Lee Long-hwa
New York
Learning the hard way
When are the people of Taiwan going to learn that most of the world does not care about what is right or what the truth is. The only way to protect yourselves is to acquire the knowledge and the ability to produce top-of-the-line warships, fighters and other weaponry.
America will not help you because your market is not as big as China's. Nor do you have something we need and can not get somewhere else.
Keith Fritzsch
Woodbridge, New Jersey
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS