President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) early announcement of the referendum questions is certainly a strategic move. Most importantly, he wants to put the US at ease. The two referendum questions have not deviated from US policy, so the US will have no reason to oppose them. Thus, the diplomatic pressure that Taiwan has faced over holding a referendum is relieved.
Although the two referendum questions are neither new nor impressive, the point is that the people of Taiwan can finally vote in a referendum, which is a vital demonstration of the nation's sovereignty. That is why China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) oppose it.
The KMT and PFP always complain that their motives are being misunderstood, but why do they always side with communist China on the issue of the nation's status and sovereignty?
Take the Referendum Law (公民投票法) for example -- Beijing publicly denounced it as a move to claim independence. The KMT and PFP also criticized it as a violation of the Constitution and tried to resist it in counties ruled by them. We can say that Beijing is an overt villain and the pan-blues are hypocrites. And they work together to prevent Taiwan from holding a referendum.
We can do nothing about opposition from Beijing, nor do we need to. But we can rebuke the pan-blues for their belief that holding a referendum violates the Constitution.
First, the Referendum Law was passed by the legislature after three readings. Commonly referred to as a "defensive" or "peace" referendum," Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues, so the referendum can be defensive or offensive in nature. Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) employ the term "peace referendum" to make the mechanism more powerful and flexible in its use.
Second, Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum "whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sover-eignty." So as long as there is a "possibility" of such a threat, the president is entitled to hold a referendum. According to the law, the president has to make the decision on whether a referendum should be held, but this decision has to be approved by the Executive Yuan. So the final decision does not rest on the president's subjective judgment alone -- a check mechanism is still in place. Although, practically speaking, the Executive Yuan's approval is only a procedure, it is not fair to say that law endows the president with dictatorial powers.
According to Article 17, there is no violation of the Constitution in Chen's initiation of a referendum. The KMT and PFP oppose the referendum simply to please China. That's why they make up the excuse about violation of the Constitution. But all they are doing is showing the public who they really are.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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