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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS