On Dec. 18, Taiwanese can vote on four referendum questions — whether they agree that a ban on pork imports containing traces of the feed additive ractopamine should be reinstated, whether a liquefied natural gas terminal project should be relocated to protect algal reefs off Taoyuan’s Guanyin District (觀音), whether referendums should be held alongside national elections and whether the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮) should resume.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is sharpening the knives, trying to persuade Taiwanese to vote “yes” on all four, with KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) saying that the referendums are an opportunity for a vote of no confidence in Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and the government led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
On Oct. 27, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) told a meeting of the DPP Central Executive Committee that she supports voting “no” on all four items, and that she believes the referendums have become bad-faith tools to oppose rival political parties and are an impediment to national development.
The pan-blue and pan-green camps are taking the discussion to the voters to drum up support for their positions, as the outcome of the referendums could decide the direction of the country.
The 2018 nine-in-one election debacle is still fresh in the nation’s mind. The chaos at the time was the reason for decoupling referendums from elections. Now Taiwan is to hold a referendum to reinstate the practice, leaving many people scratching their heads.
While the question about saving the algal reefs appeals to environmental protection concerns, the one calling on the government to restart construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant has the potential to lead to an ecological disaster. Not only are the two proposals mutually incompatible, they elicit support from different groups.
However, the KMT has failed to make any such distinction and is trying to persuade voters to tick the “yes” box on all four, which makes little sense and shows that it is exploiting the referendum for purely political ends.
The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant coming into operation is the stuff of nightmares for New Taipei City residents, so for Chu — a former New Taipei City mayor — to advocate for restarting the plant must seem like a betrayal to his former constituents.
New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), himself a KMT member, should also clarify his position on the issue.
The most controversial of the four referendum items is the one about pork imports, and a proposal drafted by KMT legislators would ban the importation of US pork containing residues of the leanness-enhancing additive.
The party seems to forget that a previous KMT administration had lifted a ban on the importation of US beef containing ractopamine residues, at the time saying that it would conform to international safety standards. The KMT’s about-face is clearly a political stunt, showing that the party opposes the government for opposition’s sake.
Ractopamine is egested by cattle and pigs before they are slaughtered, and there are no reports of adverse health effects from meat products made from animals that had been fed with ractopamine-enriched feed.
When the Tsai administration last year announced the plan to lift the ban on US pork imports, the KMT objected across the board, and the public was led astray and misinformed by widespread fake news, causing fear and leading to imported US pork being referred to as “toxic pork.”
All of this did more than just create tensions domestically; it also created a rift in US-Taiwan relations.
Taiwan wants to sign a bilateral trade agreement with the US, and has submitted an application for joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
The issue of US pork imports is closely linked to Taiwan’s foreign trade relations, as a deregulated meat products market is beneficial for closer Taiwan-US trade ties.
CPTPP member state Australia also uses ractopamine. Should the referendum against the import of US pork pass, there would be obstacles not only to US trade relations, but also to those with Australia, and it would obviously influence the degree of Australia’s support for Taiwan’s CPTPP bid.
The internal contradictions in next month’s referendums notwithstanding, one must also question what good could come of potential rifts with Taiwan’s democratic allies, cutting off paths to improving the nation’s international relationships.
Chu wants Taiwanese to vote “yes” on all four referendum questions, but who exactly would this benefit? Who exactly are the referendums for?
Chu used the occasion of an Oct. 26 event organized by the KMT to commemorate the 76th anniversary of Retrocession Day to speak about the importance of the Republic of China (ROC). However, he spoke mostly about the past and of Taiwan’s links to China.
For example, he said that “Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) overthrew the Manchu Qing empire to establish the Chinese republic,” and that “76 years ago, Taiwan was officially taken back into the bosom of the Chinese republic.”
However, he also said that the “four commitments” laid out by Tsai during her Double Ten National Day address, including a commitment “that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other” went against the Constitution, and responded with what he called the “four safeguards.”
To KMT members such as Chu — taking the perspective of a Greater China vision — the ROC in need of safeguarding is the one that existed in China when the KMT government still controlled it. Their vision becomes blurry when it comes to Beijing’s threats against Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Who do these “four safeguards” protect? Who are they meant to safeguard?
If a democratic Taiwan is to develop, its international participation is of paramount importance. It has been 50 years since UN Resolution 2758 and Beijing taking over the ROC’s seat at the UN to represent China. Now, to take away Taiwan’s sovereignty, Beijing is distorting the resolution to bolster its “one China” principle, saying that Taiwan has always belonged to China.
This has been refuted by the government, which has said that the UN resolution does not touch upon the question of who represents Taiwan.
It is only possible for Taiwan to participate in international organizations such as the UN if Taiwan and China are not subordinate to each other.
Asked about China’s opposition to Taiwan’s participation in the UN, Chu said: “The ROC was one of the UN’s founding nations.”
Chu’s answer once again dragged Taiwan through a time tunnel to when former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), in his struggle for the right to be China’s sole representative at the UN, said that “gentlemen and thieves cannot coexist.”
Beijing would only be too delighted if Chu sticks to this position.
To increase Taiwan’s international presence, senior Taiwanese and US officials have been discussing ways in which Taiwan could meaningfully participate in the UN, and the US Department of State has criticized China for misusing the UN resolution to prevent Taiwan from engaging in the international community.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that Taiwan should have meaningful participation in the UN, and encouraged all other nations to side with the US on the issue and support Taiwan.
Addressing Beijing’s global threat, opposing China and supporting Taiwan, and insisting that China and Taiwan are not subordinate to each other should be the starting points for all democratic nations.
Yet Chu is instead seeking to cut off Taiwan’s path to the international community with the referendum question on pork imports, while singing in harmony with Beijing on the “one China” principle.
Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has said that Beijing controls pro-China forces in Taiwan to create disorder, while Chu says that the DPP is responsible for the chaos.
However, from the “four safeguards” and the four referendum questions backed by the KMT, Taiwanese only need to listen to what he says and pay attention to what he does to know what is going on.
Translated by Paul Cooper
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
RSS