On Friday, President Chen Shui-bian (
The first question asks voters -- if China does not withdraw the missiles aimed at Taiwan and does not renounce the use of force -- whether they would support the government in buying more anti-missile weapons to strengthen Taiwan's defense capabilities. The second question asks if voters agree that the government and China should begin negotiations to push for the establishment of a cross-strait framework for peace and stability.
As everyone can plainly see, these topics are not in the least bit provocative. All the talk about how a referendum would bring catastrophe is groundless.
In the past three years, China's increase in missile deployments targeting Taiwan has demonstrated an intention to unilaterally change the status quo in an undemocratic and violent manner.
Chen emphasized in his remarks on Friday that he is willing to do his best to maintain peace and security, and that the campaign for a referendum on March 20 is an effort to prevent China from using force and unilaterally changing the status quo.
Chen's remarks are supported by the referendum topics he announced. The purpose of choosing these topics is to reveal China's ambitions to change the status quo, as well as to make the world and people here understand that Taiwan's efforts to strengthen its defense capabilities are purely in response to Chinese threats.
Especially noteworthy is the fact that the "anti-missile weapons" are defensive in nature -- so there is no intention on the part of Taiwan to engage in an arms race with China. Despite Chinese threats, Taiwan continues to maintain goodwill. There is no intention to provoke China or make trouble.
The second topic answers the question left open by the first. With offensive counterattacks ruled out as an option in the face of Chinese threats, what are the peaceful means through which cross-strait issues can be resolved?
Chen is trying to answer this question by forging a popular consensus in support of peaceful cross-strait negotiations.
The referendum on March 20 is in no way intended to change the status quo. Instead, the goal is to safeguard the status quo through the most peaceful means. All the concerns that the US, Japan and Europe have had about a referendum changing the status quo were the result of deception by China. Taiwan's intention to uphold the status quo is consistent with the intentions of Taiwan's allies. From this standpoint, the international community now has even more reason to support Taiwanese people's right to exercise their fundamental civil rights through a referendum.
However, a word of caution is in order. While the majority of people here will support replacing antagonism with negotiations in dealing with China, it is critical that such negotiations be conducted on the basis of reciprocal respect for sovereignty, and under close monitoring by the international community. Without that, there would seem to be little reason to trust China.
The referendum topics are consistent with popular will in Taiwan. Surely, both questions will be answered in the affirmative on March 20 by the voters.
Under the circumstances, both the pan-green and pan-blue camps should offer their utmost support to forge a united front in safeguarding peace.
With China targeting Taiwan with close to 500 missiles -- not to mention countless other offensive weapons -- and also conducting a relentless unification campaign through economic pressure, we do not understand why anyone continues to say that China poses no immediate threat to Taiwan's peace and security.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS