Enough people, more than 100,000, have now signed the petition for the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) referendum proposal which calls for a return to the UN under a "practical" title. Compared with the threatening words with which it reacted to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum proposal on joining the UN as a new member, China has been remarkably cool about the KMT's proposal. It has only criticized the party for dancing along with the pan-green camp, and made an indirect remark about how this damaged the friendly relations between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Why is China so indifferent to this proposal?
On the surface, the KMT's referendum proposal is simple. While following the party's policy of the "New three noes" -- no opposing Taiwanese autonomy, no going against public opinion, and no trying to compete with the DPP proposal -- the party made sure that "Taiwan" is one of the names under which the nation could return to the UN, in order to win the support of the pan-green voters.
Adding pan-blue voter support by using the name the "Republic of China" (ROC) and swing voter support by using "other names that are dignified and will help meet with success" is a good idea. The referendum will easily meet the threshold of a turnout of more than 50 percent, and it might even win the support of the absolute majority of the voters.
But the designers of the KMT's referendum proposal should get the facts straight. Deep-green voters won't support using the name "ROC," and deep-blue voters are wary of the name "Taiwan." Hence, the proposal is mainly aimed at swing voters who are fine with maintaining the "status quo."
The problem is that swing voters who are for maintaining the "status quo" can be divided into two groups: light-green voters who lean towards the name "Taiwan," and light-blue who sympathize with the name "ROC." The former might not support using ROC, while the latter do not necessarily support using "Taiwan." If we analyze the opinion polls perhaps the referendum proposal does not actually reflect the position of the moderate voters.
The designers of the question in the referendum know that if the moderate voters do not have a clear position, there might not be a majority voting equilibrium.
The worst possible outcome would be if neither the KMT's nor the DPP's proposal passed. Then China would have a new excuse to continue its attempts to annex Taiwan using UN resolution 2758 and its "Anti-Secession" Law.
If the KMT proposal fails, and the DPP proposal passes, the KMT strategy of confusing the people will have failed, and Taiwanese sovereignty will be reinforced.
If the KMT proposal passes, and the DPP does not, that would mean that the KMT strategy to confuse will have succeeded. It will also mean that most people agree with maintaining the "status quo," and that the combination of voters sympathizing with China or identifying with the ROC are in the majority.
Lastly, if both proposals pass, then no matter how much the two sides disagree on the interpretation, Taiwanese sovereignty is standing strong.
Hence, the most important issue in this case is whether the referendum proposal for applying for new UN membership will pass. As the moderate voters don't have a clear position on the issue, the proposal about returning to the UN is not a real subject for discussion. Beijing has understood this very well, and that's why they reacted so harshly to the former proposal, and only had some strategic criticism of the latter.
Huang Yu-lin is a former member of the Cabinet's Referendum Review Committee.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.