President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) early announcement of the referendum questions is certainly a strategic move. Most importantly, he wants to put the US at ease. The two referendum questions have not deviated from US policy, so the US will have no reason to oppose them. Thus, the diplomatic pressure that Taiwan has faced over holding a referendum is relieved.
Although the two referendum questions are neither new nor impressive, the point is that the people of Taiwan can finally vote in a referendum, which is a vital demonstration of the nation's sovereignty. That is why China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) oppose it.
The KMT and PFP always complain that their motives are being misunderstood, but why do they always side with communist China on the issue of the nation's status and sovereignty?
Take the Referendum Law (公民投票法) for example -- Beijing publicly denounced it as a move to claim independence. The KMT and PFP also criticized it as a violation of the Constitution and tried to resist it in counties ruled by them. We can say that Beijing is an overt villain and the pan-blues are hypocrites. And they work together to prevent Taiwan from holding a referendum.
We can do nothing about opposition from Beijing, nor do we need to. But we can rebuke the pan-blues for their belief that holding a referendum violates the Constitution.
First, the Referendum Law was passed by the legislature after three readings. Commonly referred to as a "defensive" or "peace" referendum," Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues, so the referendum can be defensive or offensive in nature. Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) employ the term "peace referendum" to make the mechanism more powerful and flexible in its use.
Second, Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum "whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sover-eignty." So as long as there is a "possibility" of such a threat, the president is entitled to hold a referendum. According to the law, the president has to make the decision on whether a referendum should be held, but this decision has to be approved by the Executive Yuan. So the final decision does not rest on the president's subjective judgment alone -- a check mechanism is still in place. Although, practically speaking, the Executive Yuan's approval is only a procedure, it is not fair to say that law endows the president with dictatorial powers.
According to Article 17, there is no violation of the Constitution in Chen's initiation of a referendum. The KMT and PFP oppose the referendum simply to please China. That's why they make up the excuse about violation of the Constitution. But all they are doing is showing the public who they really are.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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