The main theme of the "defensive referendum" proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is finally beginning to get some attention. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan (李應元) said on Tuesday that two examples of good topics for a referendum would be the "one country, two systems" model and on whether China should dismantle the missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Lee's timely clarification finally clears the doubts in Taiwan and abroad surrounding Chen's suggestion. It is obvious that the two topics now broached by the DPP do not touch on the unification-independence issue, nor do they conflict with Chen's "five noes."
Opposition to the "one country, two systems" model and anger over China's armed threats is common to all Taiwanese people. Using a defensive referendum to alert the international community to this situation and to win international support is a legitimate way for Taiwan to break through China's wall of threats. We do not believe that friendly countries, including the US, will oppose such action.
The DPP's fight for the referendum legislation -- which was ultimately successful once the blue camp agreed to support it, creating the first referendum legislation in the Chinese world -- allowed Chen to demonstrate to the Taiwanese people the bravery, experience and determination that a national leader should possess when leading Taiwan.
The blue camp's legislative majority meant the Referendum Law (公民投票法) was far from perfect, with many articles restricting the power of the people. Nevertheless, we finally have a legal basis for holding a referendum.
One year ago, when referendum legislation was promoted by no one except DPP Legislator Trong Chai (蔡同榮) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) lawmakers, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance made only sarcastic remarks about it, such as "a referendum law will bring disaster to the Taiwan Strait." Were it not for the DPP taking the initiative, who would have expected that Taiwan finally would get a Referendum Law?
Representing the old KMT power, both the KMT and the PFP have played a feudal, reactionary role when it comes to constitutional reform. During the KMT's rule, political reform was always initiated by the tang wai (黨外, "outside the party") forces and later the DPP. The price was imprisonment and political persecution of many democracy activists.
Now, even though the KMT and the PFP are in opposition, their reactionary instincts remain unchanged. At one point, they strongly resisted enacting a referendum law. Even Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) made the absurd accusation, by quoting a Taiwanese businessman, that the political environment in which the government was promoting referendums was like the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
As the ruling DPP continued to press the issue, however, the KMT-PFP alliance finally found no other way out than to present its own version. Although the DPP's version was overridden during the legislative process, the creation of the Referendum Law was a historically significant victory for the people of Taiwan.
Judging from the several township-level referendums conducted recently, rational and peaceful voting has finally replaced the previously frequent bloody protests by local residents. It only goes to show that Ma's remarks reflected his reactionary mentality. In other words, without referendums, people expressed themselves using violence; now that the referendum exists, they voice their opinions using the ballot.
The birth of the Referendum Law has once again highlighted the lonely, difficult role the DPP has played throughout the nation's development toward democracy. In the face of China's military threats, and carrying the great burden of opposing the blue camp, the DPP is now leading the Taiwanese people on its march forward.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS