There has been so much drivel spread by the pan-blue camp over the holding of referendums in tandem with elections that a visitor from another planet might wonder if Taiwanese are as bovine as hardline Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) figures would have us believe.
There is no question that simultaneous elections and referendums have a political purpose. Holding them separately has political uses, too, so whatever the Central Election Commission decides to do with this overblown debate, there will be a political benefit for someone.
The issue to note carefully is that the pan-blue camp wants to prevent tandem poll-plebiscites so that it can maximize the effect of a boycott on any referendum it chooses not to support. The distinction between a successful boycott and a "no" vote is worth repeating: The former invalidates the referendum, while the latter defeats the proposal.
By plugging for the former option, the pan-blue camp wishes to invalidate a democratic function -- it therefore must employ Orwellian word games to suggest that democracy is at risk if it does not. The KMT in particular is the prime mover in preventing valid plebiscites: It wishes to prevent a majority of Taiwanese from saying yes or no to any question that has a bearing on the future of the country.
This is not a debate about democracy but a display of mischief by hack operators whose hysteria and routine dissembling are entrenched in the political landscape. Broadcast enough of this material and the effect is one of charlatans shouting down the informed and the skeptical to the detriment of ordinary people on both sides of the political fence.
Since 2000 the pan-blue camp has fine-tuned the practice of attacking the integrity of the very institutions it created when it was in power all for all those decades.
It is doing this simply because it can. But if and when power is returned to the pan-blue camp we can be sure that its tune will change very quickly.
Such pragmatism is on display in Taipei County, where on-again, off-again KMT member and County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (
The national government dare not challenge Chou too robustly in the lead-up to next year's polls: The last thing the government wants is to alienate the very large number of Taipei County residents after handing them special municipality status.
One way or another, it seems that leading KMT figures have learned that the only way to deal with DPP governments is to attack not just the officers and the party, but more fundamentally the institutions themselves and the processes that protect the rights of ordinary people and administrative stability.
The KMT was once a tightly drilled Leninist party that ensured everyone was ultimately accountable to one man. These days the KMT retains many of the ideological trappings and grim fantasies of a Leninist party, but it is also beginning to display an anarchy and a poor man's warlordism that forces one to wonder how presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
The question then is who will wield the real power in the KMT, the power that would have a significant, possibly decisive, bearing on the nation's security and well-being, and especially on the structures of state and the foundations of a democratic polity.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS