The rejection by the Executive Yuan's Referendum Review Committee of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposal to hold a national referendum on whether to apply to join the UN under the name "Taiwan" was illegal and a violation of the public's rights.
Article 34 of the Referendum Law (
In other words, the committee can only deliberate on the superficial aspects of the proposal. But the rationale the committee gave for its decision concerned the referendum's substance, which is a clear transgression of its authority.
One of the committee's reasons for rejecting the proposal was: "UN states become members under their official national title. This proposal therefore implies changing the national title and is a topic for a constitutional amendment, which must be proposed following other procedures. This proposal does not appear in Article 2, Section 2 of the Referendum Law, which lists the topics suitable for a national referendum."
However, it is not unheard of for countries to join international organizations, including the UN, under unofficial names. Several of the UN's member states are registered under names other than their official titles. Switzerland and Macedonia are two examples.
In other words, a UN bid would not require changing the national title.
Another reason the committee gave for its rejection was: "The executive has already applied to the World Health Organization under the name `Taiwan.'"
First of all, the committee should be informed that the UN and the WHO are not one and the same.
Secondly, the current policy of applying to join the UN under the name "Taiwan" is the strategic political decision of the sitting president.
Successive presidents may or may not continue this campaign. The referendum could result in making a push for UN membership the duty of the head of state.
The third rationale the committee provided was that a referendum concerning "`major policy' ... cannot violate the Constitution or laws."
Our laws and our Constitution are all based on the principle of democracy and were established in order to guarantee citizens the direct exercise of civil rights.
Pre-emptively deciding on the topic denies the public those rights and violates the spirit of the Referendum Law.
Perhaps most importantly, the committee is not empowered to interpret whether or not a referendum violates the Constitution or laws.
Finally, the committee argued that the main body of the proposal and its justifications were at odds with each other, and cited the law, which says that the "overseeing organization" should reject a proposed referendum if "the content of the proposal is contradictory or obviously flawed to such an extent that the true intent of the proposal cannot be understood."
Once again, this is not an issue for the committee to consider. The law clearly states that the Central Election Commission is the "overseeing organization," not the committee.
Moreover, the commission has already certified that the proposal conformed to Article 1, Section 1 of the Referendum Law.
Lin Chia-lung is secretary-general of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Translated by Marc Langer
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS