DPP’s inexplicability
The Legislative Yuan’s Internal Administration Committee on Thursday reviewed amendments to the Referendum Act (公民投票法). The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which has always opposed allowing referendums on territorial changes, said there is no longer any reason to oppose it. Surprisingly, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which used to support holding such referendums, appeared to have changed its mind, saying territorial changes would require amending the Constitution.
Despite its flip-flopping, the KMT holds the view that the public should decide. On the other hand, the DPP’s flip-flopping is inexplicable. What is there to be afraid of? The territory as defined in the Constitution does not reflect the current territorial “status quo,” which is certainly problematic. Although a referendum is not at the same level as the Constitution, the former allows the public to directly express their opinions. Why would the DPP view amending the Constitution as a reason not to allow referendums on the issue? Perhaps it is opposed to it just to please China, as some suspect.
Amending the Constitution is a complex process, but it should always reflect public opinion. Similarly, a referendum is decided by a majority of voters. Both are based on the idea of popular sovereignty. If referendums can help the public exercise their constitutional rights, why oppose it?
The DPP returned to power because it understood public opinion, but if it continues to find excuses or hesitate on this issue, the public will eventually see through it.
Chi An-hsiu
Taipei
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS