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
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