Before the Referendum Law (公民投票法) was passed in 2003, Taiwan had already held referendums at the local level. Since a committee protesting the construction of a fifth naphtha cracker plant by CPC Corp, Taiwan in Houchin (後勁), Kaohsiung City, held the nation’s first referendum in 1990, there have been other referendums on various public issues.
In 1994, a referendum was held on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao Township (貢寮) in Taipei County. In 1995, another referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and a referendum on road construction in Sijhih (汐止) were held in Taipei County. Other referendums that year included another on nuclear power in Taipei City, one on the construction of Yongkang Park (永康公園) in Taipei City and one on the exploration of Daliao Township (大寮) in Kaohsiung County.
In 1997, a referendum was held on the reconstruction of Liaoting Community (寮頂) in Chiayi County and in 1998 a major investment project proposed by Bayer AG was put to a referendum in Taichung County.
The same year, a plebiscite was also held in Tainan City on Taiwan’s future.
All of these referendums lacked a legal basis, however, so the results were not legally binding. The results of the referendum on the construction of Yongkang Park, however, were recognized by the Taipei City Government as binding.
Since the Referendum Law was passed, six nationwide referendums have been held. In 2004, two plebiscites were held, one on increasing the nation’s purchase of anti-missile weaponry and one on negotiations with China on the establishment of a peace and stability framework. In January, two referendums were held in tandem with the legislative elections: the Democratic Progressive Party’s referendum on recovering the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) stolen assets and the KMT-proposed referendum on giving the legislature investigative powers.
Two more plebiscites were held in conjunction with the presidential election in March, both on seeking UN membership.
Although the results of each of the six referendums were affirmative, all were invalid because the total voter turnout fell below the legally specified minimum.
Before the Referendum Law became reality, it was impossible for the public to directly communicate their opinions on important issues to the government. It was not easy to pass this law. Without the efforts of academics, experts, civic organizations and the general public, legally binding direct democracy would never have been possible. However, the referendum system has repeatedly fallen victim to vicious political power struggles, which has led to boycotts that have taken advantage of the high threshold for valid results.
This has shown the deficiencies in the legislation, which must be amended in order for the act to serve its purpose: allowing the public a vehicle to communicate their will on crucial matters.
The government, political parties and the public each have an important role in deepening the nation’s democracy. The government has the obligation to promote referendums and inform the public about them in a fair and transparent manner. Political parties need to throw their weight behind an amendment to the legislation rather than boycotting referendums for their own ends. The public, meanwhile, has a duty to exercise its rights when there is a plebiscite.
Together, the government, political parties and the public should strive to expand the role of referendums in the nation’s democracy.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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