Although the Referendum Review Committee yesterday blocked a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposal to hold a referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan," the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said it would press on with its own referendum, which it announced on Thursday.
The KMT has criticized the DPP's plan for exploiting the national referendum system for political gain. However, a look at its own referendum shows the KMT does not live up to its own "standards."
The KMT announced that its referendum would ask: "Do you agree that Taiwan should adopt a policy of using practical, flexible titles when applying to return to the UN and enter other international organizations? Namely, do you approve of applying to return to the UN and enter other international organizations under the name Republic of China, or Taiwan, or other names that are dignified and will help meet with success?"
Referendums should be straightforward yes-or-no questions. The KMT referendum's wording is so broad and includes so many naming alternatives that it isn't even a question.
Obviously, the majority want the country to rejoin the UN under an appropriate name. Both parties take this position. There is no need to ask voters if they support unspecified measures to reach that goal.
The KMT needs to speak in concrete terms and spell out how it plans to reach those goals. Simply talking about "flexibility" is not enough. Instead, the party is trying to propagate the fantasy that somewhere out there are titles that will respect the nation's dignity while allowing greater international participation -- it's just that the party hasn't thought of them yet. This referendum essentially asks voters to approve in advance any name that the KMT finally conjures up.
It's nonsense to ask people to vote in a referendum on options that don't exist. For all its criticism of the DPP and its referendum drive, the KMT doesn't have better ideas about how to gain more international participation. Either that, or it isn't willing to level with voters on the downgraded name it would prefer to appease China.
The KMT referendum attempts to be so broad and vague that all will support it. If it passes, the KMT will be able to claim a political victory and a popular mandate for any policy it eventually draws up.
For all its talk of "practicality," this ambiguity strips the referendum of any utility. How could it help to guide foreign policy when it does not ask voters to express a preference for a name?
At least the DPP tried to take a clear position in its referendum question and hasn't been afraid to let the public know what it supports and what it does not.
More broadly, this tit-for-tat bickering only undermines public confidence in referendums, one of the pillars of democratic governance. Even if the DPP wins its appeal and two opposing referendums on the same topic face off during next year's presidential election, voters will likely make a choice based on party affiliation, not the national interest.
What a shame. Referendums should allow voters to transcend political partisanship in deciding what is best for the country. But as the spat between the DPP and the KMT continues, this democratic pillar will more likely be viewed as mere weaponry.
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