In an attempt to counter the mass recall movement, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) plans to launch an “anti-martial law, anti-war” referendum campaign. However, the main text of the referendum proposal is not only logically flawed, but also contravenes the Referendum Act (公民投票法). The following is an analysis of the proposal from logical and legal perspectives.
The main text of the so-called “anti-martial law” referendum proposal states that President William Lai (賴清德) has labeled China as a “foreign hostile force” and that it has raised concerns among the public that the cross-strait relationship might enter a “quasi-war.”
It reads: “Do you agree that the government should avoid war and prevent Taiwan from becoming another Ukraine, where martial law is imposed, young lives are lost and homes are destroyed?”
In logical reasoning, there exists a concept: “If P, then Q,” where “P” is the premise of a situation and “Q” is the conclusion that follows this premise. If the premise “P” is true, then the conclusion “Q” must also be true, so we would call that proposition “true.” However, if the premise “P” is true, but the conclusion “Q” is not true, then the proposition is considered “false.”
The key point here is that Lai’s labeling of China as a “foreign hostile force” does not logically lead to the conclusion that the public is concerned about the cross-strait situation entering a state of “quasi-war.” After all, the Chinese Communist Party’s aggressive behavior — conducting “united front” infiltration, sending military aircraft and ships to harass Taiwan daily and refusing to abandon its ambition of forcibly annexing Taiwan — existed long before Lai made his statement.
Since his statement does not logically lead to the conclusion that China and Taiwan would be pushed into a “quasi-war,” the referendum’s subsequent conclusion of Taiwan “becoming another Ukraine, where martial law is imposed, young lives are lost and homes are destroyed” is naturally unfounded.
Therefore, the referendum proposal clearly presents a “false” proposition.
According to the regulations in Article 9 of the Referendum Act, the main text of a referendum proposal must not imply negative connotations or use leading phrases. The content of the KMT’s “anti-martial law” referendum proposal says China has been labeled as a “foreign hostile force” — that is a fact.
However, it then deliberately connects that to a “quasi-war,” and wants to avoid a war between Taiwan and China, and prevent Taiwan from becoming “another Ukraine, where martial law is imposed, young lives are lost and homes are destroyed.”
Making that connection clearly contravenes the Referendum Act’s prohibition on implying negative connotations and using leading phrases in a referendum proposal.
The KMT’s strategy is to tie its referendum to the recall vote, encouraging voters to simultaneously support the referendum and vote “no” on the recall.
However, using leading statements and misleading rhetoric in the referendum proposal in an attempt to confuse voters would only add more fuel to the recall fire.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung County Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS