The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) recently announced it would propose two referendums — one opposing the “abolishment of the death penalty” and another opposing “martial law and war.” The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) also supports the proposals. Ironically, the more the blue and white camps push for those referendums, the more they undermine their own cause.
First, referendums are meant as an alternative to representative democracy — they are a way for the public to express their will in the event that representative democracy fails.
However, since combining forces to form a legislative majority, the KMT and TPP have regarded themselves as true representatives of majority public opinion, dominating the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in every vote. To propose those referendums now is tantamount to denying their own value as representatives of the public’s will.
Second, since President William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration, one execution has already been carried out and he has repeatedly said that martial law would not make a return to Taiwan.
The opposition alliance’s use of irrelevant and non-divisive issues for referendums not only wastes public money, but also squanders valuable deliberative time that could be spent addressing matters that genuinely impact people’s daily lives.
Third, if the blue and white camp wishes to increase the number and execution of death penalty sentences, or to abolish or significantly amend the Martial Law Act (戒嚴法), they can easily use the legislative process to do so — there is no need to complicate things further by initiating unnecessary referendums.
After all, there have been many instances where bills were pushed through despite significant opposition, with the KMT and TPP using their numerical advantage to secure passage.
Yet, on these two issues, they have suddenly abandoned that strategy — revealing that their real focus is political maneuvering, not a sincere commitment to opposing martial law or the abolition of the death penalty.
As the KMT faces a growing recall campaign, it has shown itself incapable of presenting a meaningful record of political achievements or genuine national vision. Instead, it has resorted to wasting public funds by weaponizing two serious issues — capital punishment and martial law.
By pushing referendums, they are trying to mobilize voters against the recall campaigns — their tactics are cheap and unbecoming of a party that claims to stand for the public interest.
Huang Wei-ping works in public service.
Translated by Tim Smith and Kyra Gustavsen
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