Another issue has been added to the long list of things that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) cannot agree on -- whether to pick up their referendum ballots.
On Tuesday, PFP Chairman James Soong (
No law will be broken if a person does not vote in the referendum, but it is a civic duty and a precious opportunity to ensure that the people's voice can be heard.
Politicians and government officials who oppose this, such as Soong and PFP lawmakers who plan to ape their leader, set very bad examples for a young democracy.
As for Lien, Ma and other KMT members who are playing hard-to-get on the issue, well, they are just laughable. But this is no joke. It should be a matter of pride and joy for every citizen that this country is about to reach a democratic milestone with the holding of this referendum. Not only are Lien and Ma in fact indefensibly opposed to the referendum, they dare not admit to this for fear of incurring public scorn.
It is hard to respect people who can be so evasive, so cowardly -- yet this is merely another example of the KMT's dispiriting ambiguity on critical matters of principle, another example of which was its refusal to participate in referendum debates with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The KMT apparently feels it has much to resent over this referendum, and some members, particularly Ma, have not been shy in courting the media in the past, so why not use the debates to explain their reasons for opposing it? At least they would earn some respect that way.
Instead, pro-blue-camp talk-show hosts, such as Li Ao (
Ma tried to explain that the KMT's refusal to take part in the debates was not an attack on referendums per se, just the March 20 referendum.
But that still does not explain why the KMT is unwilling to join the debates. Jaw, for his part, is also opposed to the upcoming referendum, but he's almost salivating at the prospect of taking on the DPP.
The fundamental reason for the KMT equivocating on the referendum appears to be concern about being labeled "anti-democratic" and "anti-referendum." This wishy-washy, ambiguous behavior is nothing new. In fact, the pan-blue camp has behaved this way with respect to other major policy issues, especially sovereignty -- witness Lien's opening statement in last Saturday's debate proposing to put sovereignty issues aside.
In the end, however, there is only one question that matters: Can Lien Chan be entrusted with the future of a country whose very democratic processes he detests?
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS