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.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS