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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS