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.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS