The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) efforts to amend the Organic Law of the Central Election Commission (CEC) (中央選舉委員會組織) shows that Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (張俊雄) is correct in his view that "the two-step voting format that pan-blue cities and counties propose using for the Jan. 12 legislative elections" is illegal.
It seems the KMT first tried to ignore the law and publicly claimed is was law-abiding in its electoral schemes. But when faced with threats of enforcement of the law, it switched tactics and now seeks to change the law.
Though the KMT will not admit it, this tactical change underscores its agreement with the fact that the law gives the CEC control over local election commissions. So the only way for it to get its way is to force a change in the makeup of the CEC.
Though it claims that the CEC is biased, the change it seeks indicates its preference for a biased CEC, as long as it is in the pan-blue camp's advantage. It provides further evidence that its own commissioners would not be neutral.
The behavior of the KMT leadership over voting procedures truly shows their antipathy toward democracy. Those in the KMT who genuinely support democracy must put pressure on the party elite to accept the CEC ruling.
But they haven't done so. What are they afraid of?
Anyone who supports democracy should embrace the principle that every citizen's opinion matters and has equal dignity. He or she would say: "If my own party's policy position or candidate is voted against, so be it. The people have spoken. I will abide by the results and work to persuade people in the next election."
One who embraces democracy does not seek to buy or manipulate votes, or manipulate laws to make it easier to commit electoral fraud.
It should be obvious that a one-step voting procedure will guard against fraud and help preserve a secret ballot. If the KMT were serious about its desire for a referendum, it would not matter if the referendum were given out at the same time as the election ballots.
Instead, its opposition has unveiled the fact that it couldn't care less about its referendum and only proposed it to sabotage the efforts of the Democratic Progressive Party.
In a democracy, the end does not justify the means. Rather, it is appropriate means that give legitimacy to the ends.
Joel Linton
Taipei
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS