Although the Referendum Review Committee yesterday blocked a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposal to hold a referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan," the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said it would press on with its own referendum, which it announced on Thursday.
The KMT has criticized the DPP's plan for exploiting the national referendum system for political gain. However, a look at its own referendum shows the KMT does not live up to its own "standards."
The KMT announced that its referendum would ask: "Do you agree that Taiwan should adopt a policy of using practical, flexible titles when applying to return to the UN and enter other international organizations? Namely, do you approve of applying to return to the UN and enter other international organizations under the name Republic of China, or Taiwan, or other names that are dignified and will help meet with success?"
Referendums should be straightforward yes-or-no questions. The KMT referendum's wording is so broad and includes so many naming alternatives that it isn't even a question.
Obviously, the majority want the country to rejoin the UN under an appropriate name. Both parties take this position. There is no need to ask voters if they support unspecified measures to reach that goal.
The KMT needs to speak in concrete terms and spell out how it plans to reach those goals. Simply talking about "flexibility" is not enough. Instead, the party is trying to propagate the fantasy that somewhere out there are titles that will respect the nation's dignity while allowing greater international participation -- it's just that the party hasn't thought of them yet. This referendum essentially asks voters to approve in advance any name that the KMT finally conjures up.
It's nonsense to ask people to vote in a referendum on options that don't exist. For all its criticism of the DPP and its referendum drive, the KMT doesn't have better ideas about how to gain more international participation. Either that, or it isn't willing to level with voters on the downgraded name it would prefer to appease China.
The KMT referendum attempts to be so broad and vague that all will support it. If it passes, the KMT will be able to claim a political victory and a popular mandate for any policy it eventually draws up.
For all its talk of "practicality," this ambiguity strips the referendum of any utility. How could it help to guide foreign policy when it does not ask voters to express a preference for a name?
At least the DPP tried to take a clear position in its referendum question and hasn't been afraid to let the public know what it supports and what it does not.
More broadly, this tit-for-tat bickering only undermines public confidence in referendums, one of the pillars of democratic governance. Even if the DPP wins its appeal and two opposing referendums on the same topic face off during next year's presidential election, voters will likely make a choice based on party affiliation, not the national interest.
What a shame. Referendums should allow voters to transcend political partisanship in deciding what is best for the country. But as the spat between the DPP and the KMT continues, this democratic pillar will more likely be viewed as mere weaponry.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS