The road to the nation's first ever referendum has been bumpy. International anxiety over President Chen Shui-bian's (
The referendum issue is legally controversial, but it is ultimately a political struggle. The pan-blue camp plans to oppose the ruling party by three means -- asking for an interpretation of the Constitution from the Council of Grand Justices, mobilizing the cities and counties run by pan-blue leaders to resist taking part in the referendum and encouraging voters to reject the referendum ballots. An interpretation of the Constitution is certainly a proper way to resolve the dispute over a defensive referendum. But by the time an interpretation is issued, the election will have long been a fait accompli.
Cities and counties run by pan-blue leaders may be able to paralyze the referendum proceedings by refusing to cooperate. But it will be illegal for the cities and counties to resist a legal order issued by the president in accordance with Article 17 of the Referendum Law (
The pan-blue camp's most likely approach would be to separate the presidential election from the referendum administratively and call on the public to refuse to vote in the referendum. This may reduce both the turnout rate and the political association between the referendum and the election, thereby minimizing the points Chen could gain from the referendum and minimizing the pan-blue camp's loss.
Whether Chen's handling of the referendum issue meets the criteria set in Article 17 of the law -- when the nation comes under external threats and is in danger of a sovereignty change -- is up to his political judgment. The voters will decide how to answer that question; the political parties should not overstep their responsibility and answer it for them.
The KMT continues to exercise an authoritarian decision-making model. It still wants to have a small group of people make decisions for the majority. This is a democratically regressive approach. The referendum plan is a rather daring and risky political decision, but it is also a smart strategy compatible with a state leader's handling of the nation's international predicament and China's threats.
If a head of state does not have the ability and determination to resolve a predicament facing the country, the people certainly will not entrust him or her with governance. Chen first attracted international attention by raising the referendum issue and then gained international acceptance by presenting the carefully worded referendum questions. He has demonstrate his ability to run the country.
Taiwan is not a normal country. It has limited national international status and its people have no dignity in the international community. These are key factors affecting the nation's ability to join the international community. Both presidential candidates should see the big picture of Taiwan's plight and propose solutions. This will be a key factor determining voter behavior and cannot be ignored.
Taiwan is still facing China's military threats. It must maintain a status of independence and self-determination in the changing international situation. Only then can Taipei negotiate peacefully and engage in exchanges with Beijing on an equal basis. The question of which presidential candidate can stand firm on national sovereignty issues, trust the people and defend Taiwan's interests is a question that voters cannot ignore.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS