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
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