Article 17 of the newly passed Referendum Law (公民投票法) states that "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which may change its national sovereignty, the president may, following a resolution by the Executive Yuan, place national security matters before the public for decision in a referendum." This is the basis of a "preventive referendum" (防衛性公投) -- or "defensive referendum" (防禦性公投) -- which has been debated by the ruling and opposition camps, and has attracted attention from both China and the US.
Article 17 clearly empowers the president to initiate a referendum by following the Cabinet's resolution, which does not have to go through the referendum review committee.
It's also necessary to clarify the argument over the premise for launching a preventive referendum. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said that Article 17 should be a "defensive," not a "provocative" one. They also said that although China has deployed 496 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, the missiles are not an instant threat that may change Taiwan's sovereignty.
I can't help but wonder: as presidential and vice presidential candidates, what exactly are Lien's and Soong's perspectives on national sovereignty? What are the missiles if they are not considered an external threat? Won't Taiwan's national dignity be damaged if politicians do not take external threats seriously but only criticize their political rivals?
Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has even claimed that Article 17 should not be taken as a tool to consolidate the people's consensus, because this does not tally with the article's original purpose. He seems to be completely opposed to the existence of the article. Otherwise, how could he downgrade a matter of national sovereignty to the level of general policies?
A referendum is a demonstration of the constitutional principle of "sovereignty resides in the people," which ensures that they can directly exercise their basic civil rights. It's a nation's last legitimate political measure for consolidating the people's consensus. How could Ma describe this as "rarely seen in the referendum history of the world?" It's a pity that he made such ignorant comments in public.
How should the people view the legitimacy of a "preventive referendum?"
First, such a referendum is used to protect our national sovereignty, keeping it from being changed or damaged. The fact is the PRC is obviously attempting to change our sovereignty by pen and sword. It has humiliated us by saying that Taiwan's sovereignty does not exist, and has tried to annex the island, while shamelessly bribing the people with its "one county, two systems" plan.
In my opinion, the former KMT government neglected its duty to seriously handle this threat. Today, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) decision to launch a preventive referendum so as to secure national sovereignty is a legitimate one.
Next, since a preventive referendum is used to protect national sovereignty, it should not necessarily change Taiwan's sover-eignty. A preventive referendum is used to consolidate the people's consensus in opposing China's unification propaganda. It's clearer and more reasonable to call it an "anti-unification referendum."
Finally, a preventive referendum is actually a referendum that seeks peace. It's also an appeal made by the people of this nation to the world to demand that it squarely face the fact that "autocratic China has deployed almost 500 missiles aimed at democratic Taiwan."
Thus, a referendum to urge China to withdraw its missiles tallies with humanity.
Michael Hsiao is the executive director of the Center of Asia-Pacific Area Studies at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS