Fri, Feb 20, 2004 page8

• Editorial: All hail Lien the Equivocator

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Another issue has been added to the long list of things that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) cannot agree on -- whether to pick up their referendum ballots.

  On Tuesday, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said that he would boycott the referendum. The following day, Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), a KMT vice chairman, said not only that he would vote in the referendum, but also that the PFP had not even discussed the issue with his party. Pan-blue supporters could be forgiven for feeling confused about what they should do, since neither KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) nor Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have been willing to say what they will do.

  No law will be broken if a person does not vote in the referendum, but it is a civic duty and a precious opportunity to ensure that the people's voice can be heard.

  Politicians and government officials who oppose this, such as Soong and PFP lawmakers who plan to ape their leader, set very bad examples for a young democracy.

  As for Lien, Ma and other KMT members who are playing hard-to-get on the issue, well, they are just laughable. But this is no joke. It should be a matter of pride and joy for every citizen that this country is about to reach a democratic milestone with the holding of this referendum. Not only are Lien and Ma in fact indefensibly opposed to the referendum, they dare not admit to this for fear of incurring public scorn.

  It is hard to respect people who can be so evasive, so cowardly -- yet this is merely another example of the KMT's dispiriting ambiguity on critical matters of principle, another example of which was its refusal to participate in referendum debates with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

  The KMT apparently feels it has much to resent over this referendum, and some members, particularly Ma, have not been shy in courting the media in the past, so why not use the debates to explain their reasons for opposing it? At least they would earn some respect that way.

  Instead, pro-blue-camp talk-show hosts, such as Li Ao (李敖), Sisy Chen (陳文茜) and Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), will act as the blue camp's mouthpiece in the debates.

  Ma tried to explain that the KMT's refusal to take part in the debates was not an attack on referendums per se, just the March 20 referendum.

  But that still does not explain why the KMT is unwilling to join the debates. Jaw, for his part, is also opposed to the upcoming referendum, but he's almost salivating at the prospect of taking on the DPP.

  The fundamental reason for the KMT equivocating on the referendum appears to be concern about being labeled "anti-democratic" and "anti-referendum." This wishy-washy, ambiguous behavior is nothing new. In fact, the pan-blue camp has behaved this way with respect to other major policy issues, especially sovereignty -- witness Lien's opening statement in last Saturday's debate proposing to put sovereignty issues aside.

  In the end, however, there is only one question that matters: Can Lien Chan be entrusted with the future of a country whose very democratic processes he detests?
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwanese lose status after obtaining single-use Chinese passport

  • 2

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 3

    KMT chair to meet with Xi, but at a price: source

  • 4

    Taiwanese tourists go viral in video during Japan quake

  • 5

    US vows deterrence ‘through strength’