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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS