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
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