Taiwan has had a packed agenda for the past few months. From recall elections and the four referendums to the upcoming legislative by-election for Taichung’s second electoral district, Taiwanese have been pouring time and energy into politics, which has been laborious.
The voter turnout rate for the Dec. 18 referendum was 41.09 percent, far lower than the about 75 percent for last year’s presidential election. Since the referendum questions were about policymaking, not candidates, it was hardly surprising that it did not garner as much attention and interest.
The referendum questions were proposed by pro-China elements within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Many Taiwanese initially assumed they were about food safety, environmental protection and other complex issues, but after some research and analysis, the public realized that they were nothing but a political charade to undermine the government.
If the KMT had succeeded with its scheme, the biggest benefactor would not have been the public, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In other words, Taiwan would have been inflicting self-harm and benefiting the CCP in approving the questions.
The proposals were designed to disrupt the policies of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Unless there were grave malpractices, abuses of power or severe corruption in the governing party, it is inconsequential to try to contest ongoing policies.
However, the KMT mobilized the whole party into engaging the referendums, and to mold them in a way to “teach the DPP a lesson” and as a symbol of “civil disobedience” against the government, with the underlying motive of causing political strife.
Fortunately, the DPP mobilized all of its resources to host 2,000 referendum forums nationwide, and in the end protected its progressive policies with voters rejecting the referendums.
In the past few years, from the persecution of Uighurs to the crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement, the CCP has pushed against the tide of democracy, thereby losing the support of Taiwanese. The pro-China supporters have shrunk to less than 10 percent.
If the KMT had faced the DPP head-on over national sovereignty, they would not stand a chance and might even draw accusations of “selling out Taiwan.” So the smart move was to avoid the issue of national sovereignty altogether, and divert the public’s attention from the CCP to domestic issues such as food safety, environmental protection, recall elections and referendums.
Former Taiwan Statebuilding Party legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) was a member of the Legislative Yuan’s Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee alongside independent Legislator Freddy Lim (林昶佐), both of whom are committed to an anti-CCP stance. If the KMT could have them both recalled, then the DPP would be on equal footing with the KMT in the committee, as the pan-green camp would lose its edge in reviews of the foreign and national defense budget.
That is why KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) has said: “We will recall whoever endorses the position of ‘oppose the CCP, safeguard Taiwan.’” The KMT has also lambasted the DPP for stirring up “a sense of national doom,” so as to deflect public concerns over Beijing’s “one China” agenda and “red infiltration.”
Opposition parties in other countries put their nations’ interests first, followed by party competition. In the face of large-scale infiltration by the CCP, the KMT chose to collude with Beijing, and make the denunciation of the governing party its top priority over the public’s interests.
In a fluctuating international situation, democratic countries have been forming alliances to oppose Beijing. With the CCP’s repeated military incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, extensive “red infiltration” efforts in Taiwan and blocking the nation’s integration into the international community, the opposition of the CCP has always been Taiwan’s biggest challenge.
The KMT’s consecutive maneuvers of enacting recall elections and referendums have forced the nation to put out fires while setting aside national security. Stopping the KMT from stamping out voices calling to “oppose the CCP, safeguard Taiwan” might yet be Taiwan’s greatest challenge.
Susie Su is a Taiwanese living in Australia.
Translated by Rita Wang
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS