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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS