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.
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