The Central Election Commission (CEC) is set to announce today how ballots for elections and referendums will be handed out during next year's legislative and presidential elections.
Whichever method the committee opts for is bound to cause a furor, as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) remain at loggerheads over how voters should receive their ballots on election day. The DPP backs a one-step process (voters receive the ballot and referendum papers simultaneously) as it believes this will improve referendum turnout, while the KMT supports the two-step method used during the 2004 presidential election.
The statute governing the organization of the CEC means the Cabinet selects almost all of its members, giving the government control of the body and leading many observers to predict it will plump for the DPP's preferred modus operandi.
The KMT, skeptical of the CEC's ability to ignore DPP demands, has gone to great lengths to influence opinion in its favor, urging the commission not to change the established formula and staging demonstrations of the potential for confusion should a new method be employed.
But while some of the KMT's arguments do hold water, the despicable tactics it has used to try to ensure its will is obeyed -- raising the specter of cross-strait conflict and making all 18 counties and cities under its jurisdiction declare they will disobey any decree from the CEC requiring joint ballot distribution -- have only done damage to its image.
The prospect of having a majority of Taiwanese telling the KMT that they want their stolen assets returned or having them openly debase the myth that is the "Republic of China" is obviously too much for the party to bear.
In a mature democracy, political groups that want to defeat a referendum question launch a campaign in the hope of eliciting a "no" vote from the electorate; they do not instigate a rival poll whose only aim is to guarantee the original referendum fails, nor do they try to ensure the voting method used is conducive to the plebiscite's failure.
By behaving in this fashion the KMT is clearly demonstrating both its fear of the electorate and the party's anti-democratic nature.
The KMT hopes that the two-step method will cause voters either simply to forget to participate in the referendum -- as the DPP claims they did in 2004 -- or allow it to discourage or intimidate people into not voting at all.
On the other hand, after expending thousands of man-hours collecting the 800,000 or so signatures enabling each of the referendums to take place in the first place, the DPP should not have to rely on manipulating the CEC to help pass the plebiscites.
In the event the commission decides to keep the existing system, the DPP will need to come up with a strategy to ensure maximum participation on election day.
This should not be difficult and the DPP doesn't deserve to get a positive result if it is incapable of coming up with a solution to this problem. One or two party staffers outside each polling station reminding people not to forget the referendum would be a simple, yet effective, answer.
Of course, these staffers may be subject to intimidation from opposition-aligned thugs opposed to the plebiscites, but the dangwai movement and DPP never let years of similar treatment put them off in the past.
If the DPP is serious about making sure these referendums pass, then a few more scars should be the least of its worries.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS