Taiwan has had a packed agenda for the past few months. From recall elections and the four referendums to the upcoming legislative by-election for Taichung’s second electoral district, Taiwanese have been pouring time and energy into politics, which has been laborious.
The voter turnout rate for the Dec. 18 referendum was 41.09 percent, far lower than the about 75 percent for last year’s presidential election. Since the referendum questions were about policymaking, not candidates, it was hardly surprising that it did not garner as much attention and interest.
The referendum questions were proposed by pro-China elements within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Many Taiwanese initially assumed they were about food safety, environmental protection and other complex issues, but after some research and analysis, the public realized that they were nothing but a political charade to undermine the government.
If the KMT had succeeded with its scheme, the biggest benefactor would not have been the public, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In other words, Taiwan would have been inflicting self-harm and benefiting the CCP in approving the questions.
The proposals were designed to disrupt the policies of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Unless there were grave malpractices, abuses of power or severe corruption in the governing party, it is inconsequential to try to contest ongoing policies.
However, the KMT mobilized the whole party into engaging the referendums, and to mold them in a way to “teach the DPP a lesson” and as a symbol of “civil disobedience” against the government, with the underlying motive of causing political strife.
Fortunately, the DPP mobilized all of its resources to host 2,000 referendum forums nationwide, and in the end protected its progressive policies with voters rejecting the referendums.
In the past few years, from the persecution of Uighurs to the crackdown on Hong Kong’s democracy movement, the CCP has pushed against the tide of democracy, thereby losing the support of Taiwanese. The pro-China supporters have shrunk to less than 10 percent.
If the KMT had faced the DPP head-on over national sovereignty, they would not stand a chance and might even draw accusations of “selling out Taiwan.” So the smart move was to avoid the issue of national sovereignty altogether, and divert the public’s attention from the CCP to domestic issues such as food safety, environmental protection, recall elections and referendums.
Former Taiwan Statebuilding Party legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) was a member of the Legislative Yuan’s Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee alongside independent Legislator Freddy Lim (林昶佐), both of whom are committed to an anti-CCP stance. If the KMT could have them both recalled, then the DPP would be on equal footing with the KMT in the committee, as the pan-green camp would lose its edge in reviews of the foreign and national defense budget.
That is why KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) has said: “We will recall whoever endorses the position of ‘oppose the CCP, safeguard Taiwan.’” The KMT has also lambasted the DPP for stirring up “a sense of national doom,” so as to deflect public concerns over Beijing’s “one China” agenda and “red infiltration.”
Opposition parties in other countries put their nations’ interests first, followed by party competition. In the face of large-scale infiltration by the CCP, the KMT chose to collude with Beijing, and make the denunciation of the governing party its top priority over the public’s interests.
In a fluctuating international situation, democratic countries have been forming alliances to oppose Beijing. With the CCP’s repeated military incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, extensive “red infiltration” efforts in Taiwan and blocking the nation’s integration into the international community, the opposition of the CCP has always been Taiwan’s biggest challenge.
The KMT’s consecutive maneuvers of enacting recall elections and referendums have forced the nation to put out fires while setting aside national security. Stopping the KMT from stamping out voices calling to “oppose the CCP, safeguard Taiwan” might yet be Taiwan’s greatest challenge.
Susie Su is a Taiwanese living in Australia.
Translated by Rita Wang
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS