Recently, 56 pan-blue legislators and a number of non-governmental organizations asked the Central Election Commission (CEC) to separate the presidential election from the UN referendums. This is a clear obstruction of the referendum process and is posturing that will not likely produce concrete results.
According to the Referendum Law, if the number of petitioners for a referendum is greater than 0.5 percent of the total number of voters in the previous presidential election, a review committee will announce the start of an official petition.
If the number of signatories for that petition is more than 5 percent of the number of voters in the previous election, the referendum can proceed.
Unless over half of the individuals who proposed the referendum agree to a cancelation and present a written request through a representative before the CEC begins the petition process, the CEC has no right to stop or cancel a referendum.
The CEC does have the right to independently determine the time and procedure of referendums and neither the legislature nor the Cabinet can interfere with its decisions. The pan-blue legislators' petition therefore has no legal basis.
The pan-blue camp is trying to thwart the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposed referendum by any means possible. The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) own referendum on re-entering the UN under the name "Republic of China" is simply meant to confuse voters. As the KMT is not serious about its proposed referendum, the public and the international community have shown little interest in it.
Insisting on adopting the two-step voting procedure in the legislative and presidential elections next year is another strategy to disrupt the DPP-proposed referendum. If the referendum and election ballots were to be issued separately, the pan-blues' hope for a low voting rate for the referendum could materialize, just as it did in 2004's arms purchase referendum. Although more than 50 percent of the votes were in favor of that proposal, it didn't pass because the turnout was under the 50 percent threshold.
Pressure from China and the international community is also threatening the DPP referendum, as some voters worry that if the referendum passes it could harm cross-strait relations.
Although the pan-blue camp has gone to great lengths to obstruct the DPP referendum, it has all been just for show. The party wasn't using the most simple, most direct and most legal method -- speaking directly to voters and trying to convince them that the referendum would do Taiwan more harm than good, and telling voters that the wisest and most practical way of trying to gain entrance to international organizations is supporting the KMT's own referendum on returning to the UN under any practical name.
Why hasn't the KMT done this? Is it because the party can't defend its position or lacks confidence in its own ideas?
One way or another, this is a farce. The KMT is not serious about rallying support for its own referendum on returning to the UN and is simply focusing on doing everything it can to smother the DPP-proposed referendum. It might make dramatic sound bites, but in the end the KMT's reputation for holding democratic institutions in contempt remains rock solid.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US