In addition to theoretical reasoning, looking back at the following three major events of the 1990s will help us to maintain a realistic perspective when we think over the controversy surrounding a proposed plebiscite and referendum law in a rational manner.
DPP Legislator Trong Chai (蔡同榮) and pro-independence groups led a major march on Sept. 8, 1991, calling for Taiwan's entry into the UN as an independent country. The number of people who participated in the march rivaled that of another protest, on April 17 of the same year, against constitutional amendments introduced by the KMT.
It was a time when the DPP and pro-independence groups had a close relationship. In the summer of 1991, the two held meetings with each other on the creation of a new Constitution. They also called for the demand for a referendum to be incorporated into the DPP party charter.
A public demonstration in 1998 appealed for a plebiscite. Because the general atmosphere at that time did not allow for a detailed investigation of lawmaking problems, the DPP and like-minded groups believed that the end result would be realization of the people's right to self-determination.
Next, when the KMT and DPP worked together in 1997 to amend the Constitution, they reached agreement at a senior level that the people should be legally entitled to exercise a right to call for a plebiscite on national affairs. This idea was written into both parties' individual draft proposals for constitutional amendments.
Although the New Party offered a different version, they basically agreed with the KMT and DPP that the people may exercise the right of referendum. They also froze a clause in Article 27 of the constitution that the National Assembly has the right of initiative and referendum.
In addition, the DPP version of the proposal added that the president may demand a referendum for any national policy of great concern, including the proposed constitutional amendments.
But the focus that year was on freezing the provincial government and the abolition of the Legislative Yuan's power of veto over the president's choice of premier. The proposals concerning the referendum were therefore stillborn.
Third, in the spring of 1999 there was a hunger strike in front of the Legislative Yuan to advocate a referendum law. Many legislators and leading social activists participated. The then KMT legislator Eugene Jao (
Although the proposal stated that referendums would mostly be used to solve sovereignty issues and might "touch off confrontations," it added that they might also "change the present condition of separation."
The proposal was pretty comprehensive, with various clauses related to procedures, results, litigation and penalties. The only items not included were clauses on budget, land taxes, wages and personnel matters.
If the Constitution is the foundation for the operations of a multi-party system in contemporary Taiwan, the pan-blue and pan-green camps have a common responsibility to implement those articles of the constitution that stipulate that "the people shall have the right of election, recall, initiative and referendum," and that "the exercise of the rights of initiative and referendum shall be prescribed by law."
The people should take action against those political figures who flagrantly violate these constitutional articles and usurp the people's rights.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Academia Sinica's Institute of Modern History and vice chairman of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Grace Shaw
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