the KMT and the PFP have flip-flopped repeatedly on the referendum legislation issue. It is disappointing that they have done this merely in consideration of next year's presidential election.
First they criticized the DPP for promoting a referendum, accusing it of promoting independence. They said a referendum would be unconstitutional and would push the country toward annihilation.
Later they decided to usurp the "referendum," "love Taiwan" and "localization" banners. They said they wanted a referendum law enacted this month and a referendum held next month. They also asserted that the unification-independence issue and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue should be resolved together. As they move from opposing referen-dums to supporting them, the opposition parties have not clarified what concepts and ideals might be the basis for their shift.
A referendum law involves the concrete implementation of direct democracy. It is a serious national affair. Political parties should not view this issue as another election strategy.
Political strategists have told the opposition alliance that the Lien-Soong ticket would win next year's election if they could take hold of the "love Taiwan" banner -- supporting referendums including one on unification or independence, opposing "one China," taking a "Taiwan first" stance, etc.
It wouldn't have mattered if the opposition had always supported these policies. The problem is that the KMT and the PFP have long called for a return to the "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" principle or the 1992 consensus.
PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) stated the "constitutional one China" and "one China rooftop" principles. For a long time, the opposition parties have viewed referendum legislation as incremental independence, fearful that it may eventually lead to real independence.
The opposition gave rise to suspicions of self-contradiction in its recent policy u-turn on a referendum on unification or independence. Many commentators have criticized this contradiction, but we have not seen the KMT and the PFP make a thorough explanation.
Both parties are trying to get rid of the "don't love Taiwan" and "sell out Taiwan" labels before the presidential election. That is why they have stumbled repeatedly on the referendum issue.
A political party should have its own core beliefs and values. It should also clearly state these beliefs and values to voters, as well as what policies they will adopt to realize these ideals.
If the KMT and the PFP staunchly oppose independence and believe that Taiwan should unify with China under specific conditions, then they should have the courage to tell voters their platform and their method of implementation.
If these are not the KMT's and PFP's core beliefs, then they should say it clearly and let the voters know exactly how the opposition differs from the DPP on this issue. This is the only upstanding way.
I don't think the KMT and PFP have ever proposed a clear discourse on national sovereignty. At best, they have only proposed the "1992 consensus" or Soong's recent "one China rooftop."
As the prelude to the election campaign begins, many important figures in both parties have been saying that their parties have never advocated "one China." This is bewildering.
Advocating "one China" is not something to be ashamed of, nor would it necessarily cause voters to abandon the advocate. Everything depends on how one explains to voters what is meant by a "one China" policy, the "constitutional one China" or the "one China rooftop."
How to clarify cross-strait relations under those abstract poli-cies? What about the future direction of the country's development? Are we moving toward eventual unification? How to establish the nation's international status and expand its participation in international events? What would be the response if China launches a military attack against Taiwan? What does "Taiwan first" mean? Would any change to Taiwan's sovereignty status be decided through a referendum?
The electorate urgently wants to know the answers to those questions. Can the KMT and PFP present clear explanations? If they are determined to localize, give priority to the nation's interests and defend its sovereignty, if they respect the people's right to self-determination on their country's future, then they should give up the power schemes and propose clear platforms.
They should not flip-flop because that will only make people feel that the KMT and PFP are merely scheming for victory.
We need honest party politics. All parties should clearly tell voters their core beliefs, values and policies. If a party can say or do anything -- even violate its own long-standing beliefs and values -- just to win an election, then how can we trust that such a party will not betray the voters once it is elected?
Whether you support unification or independence, you have the right to promote it in a democratic society as long as you sincerely accept the related ideals and values. There's nothing wrong with this as long as the voters support you.
But the premise for this is that political parties should be upstanding and honest. Less scheming and more candor make the only path to victory in the presidential election.
Allen Houng is a professor at the Institute of Neuroscience at National Yang-Ming University.
Translated by Francis Huan
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS