The Belgian Chamber of Representatives on Friday last week unanimously passed a resolution condemning Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intimidation against Taiwan.
It asked the Belgian government to advocate that the EU bolster its partnership with Taiwan, “with a view to promoting common values and principles, including by concluding a resilient supply chain agreement and a bilateral investment agreement.”
The agreements on resilient supply chains and bilateral investments are practical, mutually beneficial considerations; the promotion of common values and principles is harder to define and is in the realm of soft power — they are especially important as democracy is being challenged around the globe.
Taiwan is one of the few democracies in the world that still resorts to the death penalty. It is one issue in which Taiwan cannot be said to share common values and principles with the EU, and this point is not lost on Brussels. The continued use of capital punishment is problematic in terms of the progressive image that Taiwan projects abroad.
This does not mean in itself that it should be abolished in Taiwan: such is the nature of democracy. However, a watch is needed to prevent democracy being manipulated for political interests of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
A majority of Taiwanese — by some accounts, more than 80 percent — support maintaining the death penalty. Would that figure remain so high if the public were more informed on the issue, or if survey questions were presented with a range of alternatives, rather than a binary “abolish” or “retain” framing? If it still remained high, would that mean the democratic process had been exhausted? Should the political leaders and elected representatives throw up their hands and say: “It is the will of the public, there is nothing to be done”?
Instead of looking at the death penalty and the rights and wrongs thereof, perhaps the question can be approached from the perspective of what a strong democracy is and the part that elected representatives are supposed to play within this. Should they lead or represent? Does the electorate trust the elected representatives to implement the majority public whim, or do voters entrust themselves to the judgement and leadership of the individuals they choose to represent their constituencies?
On substantive issues, such as human rights or moral issues, sometimes a top-down approach is preferable, in which elected representatives lead the way with the trust that has been invested in them to do what they believe is right and then seek to educate later.
The Constitutional Court is one mechanism through which legitimacy can be provided to support this approach.
A referendum is a democratic process that allows for a large degree of bottom-up decisionmaking. It is useful to gain an understanding of the mood of the nation, but it should be used wisely and not to gain a political advantage. Neither should it be used as a substitute for real leadership.
The KMT is fooling nobody with its cynical call for a referendum against the abolition of the death penalty. It is nothing but a distraction exploiting a sure bet to improve its chances in the recall campaigns against its legislators, a short-term gain sacrificing the long-term prospects of bolstering relationships with overseas voices that could help Taiwan against CCP aggression.
The trick is nothing new. The opening line from a Taipei Times editorial published on June 16, 2015, reads: “A referendum proposal initiated by KMT Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) on the death penalty shows that the party sees the extreme form of punishment as a tool for political gain.”
Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us all.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS