The Referendum Review Committee has already rejected two public plebiscites championed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). The reason: The referendum would make no difference even if it were passed because the TSU versed the yes/no question in affirmative terms despite the fact it was opposed to the thing referred to.
Therefore, it was declared to be redundant because a yes vote would still not require the institution involved to take any action whatsoever to change the current situation. By doggedly holding on to its misinterpretation of the legislation, the committee has come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with the Referendum Act (公投法).
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of law knows that legislation must be read beyond the purely literal interpretation of each clause. Clauses should be understood within the context of the legislation as a whole, the systematic interpretation and in terms of the final goal or intent of the law — the teleological interpretation.
The issue must be seen in the context of the referendum system. Despite the superficial distinction between referendums on laws and on major policies, they are both concerned with what the government is doing, and as such provide the public with the opportunity and wherewithal to protest and rein in the government’s actions.
As a result, the individual or entity that proposes the referendum, irrespective of whether it is aimed at a law or a major policy, is therefore opposed to a law or policy that is about to be, or has already been, passed. If that individual or entity agreed with the law or policy, there would have been no need to propose a referendum in the first place.
There are basically three possible outcomes to a referendum within this system. The first is where the number of voters falls short of a legally determined threshold; the second where the threshold is met and the number of votes in favor of the proposal exceed 50 percent; and the third where the threshold is met, but the number of votes in favor is less than 50 percent.
In the first situation the result is declared void; that is, it has no legal validity. The latter two are both considered valid, but differ as follows: Given that the proposal opposes a law or policy, as argued above, the second situation constitutes a rejection of said law or policy, while the third is an approval of it, since the referendum has not been passed by a majority of voters.
The point is to consider the goals and inherent logic of the referendum system. The text of the Referendum Act is not particularly laden with abstruse legal terminology, but in the interests of clarity, when it says “agree” in the first section of Article 30, it is referring to the second situation mentioned above.
That is, the public rejects (does not agree) with the soon-to-be-passed or already passed law or policy in question. When the second paragraph of Article 30 talks of the proposal being “vetoed,” it is referring to the first and second situations mentioned above, in which the result is considered to be either invalid or an indication of the public’s consent for the law or policy being referred to.
People have voted for or against the proposal in response to how it was versed, irrespective of whether it was in positive or negative terms. Nowhere in the act does it define how the wording of the question is to be versed.
The effective practice of democracy relies not on intellectual concepts or slavish adherence to literal readings, it is about people’s unshakeable commitment to, and belief in, the rule of law and their ability to make independent choices in a truly free environment. It is easy for the individual to feel trapped and constrained in a system in which majority decision-making has come to represent democracy, and they may feel impotent in the face of the system.
It is therefore important for each individual to be able, at the very least, to have the chance to say “no” when it comes to fundamental issues they feel have a direct impact on their personal safety and their national identity. This, after all, addresses in some way the inherent shortcomings of the democratic system. It acts as a pressure valve. As such, it might be the only thing preventing the democratic system from collapsing around us.
Lee Chien-liang is a research professor at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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