The brouhaha in the Legislative Yuan on Wednesday during the review of the proposed referendum law, complete with name-calling, flag-waving and the melodramatic passing out of DPP lawmaker Hsu Jung-shu (
As a country that holds elections within abnormally short intervals, people have become used to seeing politicians speaking about their respect for the "popular will" to the point of tears. Next time any legislator tries to gain sympathy votes with this act, first check out whether he or she has lived up to those words during Wednesday's review session.
The bill, proposed by DPP lawmaker Trong Chai (
The fear of the PFP and KMT lawmakers, which eventually successfully blocked review of the bill with their majority in the Home and Nations Committee, was that the said bill, if enacted, would be used to change the name, national flag or national anthem of this country or, to put it in their own words, "to accomplish Taiwan independence."
Unfortunately, there are several major problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, the independent sovereignty of this country is already a fact beyond dispute. So, unless they are delusional enough to think that Taiwan is part of China and they are lawmakers of the PRC, the issue of Taiwan independence is really moot.
Perhaps they simply have a distaste for the name "Taiwan," the name they suspect that the pan-green is plotting to adopt for this country once the said proposed law is enacted. Perhaps we should feel sorry for people so conflicted they can't bear to hear the name of the place where they live. Be that as it may, if they have any respect for the democratic process, they should surely only approve of a law that deepens democracy by allowing people a more direct say in their own affairs.
And with this in mind, if a majority of people did vote in a referendum to change the name, national flag or national anthem, how dare these lawmakers stand in the way of the people's clearly expressed will. But it goes beyond this. It is not just a matter of democratic principle but people's constitutional right. Article 17 of the Constitution, which states that "The people shall have the right of election, recall, initiative and referendum." The former refers to the right of the people, upon obtaining a sufficient number of endorsements, to initiate and submit bill for plebiscites. The latter refers to the right of the people to approve or reject bills proposed by the Legislative Yuan through plebiscites.
We could also point out that the version of the bill being reviewed had been seriously watered down, specifically prohibiting voting on "national orientation issues," such as such as the country's boundaries, formal title and national anthem. Yet, the opposition lawmakers continue to claim that the passage of the bill would mean the end of the "ROC." Basically there is no logic to this behavior and we can only hope that people will show their disapproval of such stupidity at the polls.
Other reasons cited by the opposition lawmakers included concerns on the part of the US and the objections of China. In terms of former, since when have the typically anti-American opposition lawmakers cared about the attitude of the US? In fact, it was during that very same review session that a PFP lawmaker shouted "long live Iraq." As for the latter reason, perhaps they are forgetting that they are still ROC lawmakers, not yet the PRC functionaries they so earnestly desire to become.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS