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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers