The independence referendums recently held by the Kurds and the Catalans have renewed the referendum debate among Taiwanese.
In European and North American democracies, referendums are as natural as breathing and sleeping. After all, is there a more democratic way to find out what a plurality of the public thinks about an issue that cannot be resolved by other means?
Of course, no one can guarantee what the majority will decide, but referendums ensure that everyone can participate in the decisionmaking process and share the responsibility for the outcome regardless of the result.
While some people hold the perverted opinion that referendums are dangerous, others naively consider them a panacea for all unresolved issues.
Still others, worried that referendums would become overused, emphasize the limitations needed on referendums, suggesting that subjects related to science and religious freedom should not be put to a referendum.
This is all nonsense. Today, everyone understands that the right and wrong of scientific questions and theory can be objectively determined, rather than subjectively chosen. Science is not a matter where the minority must abide by the majority’s decision, and scientific theory cannot and will not be decided in a referendum.
Speaking of religious freedom, a wide range of deities are worshiped in Taiwan, including the Buddha, the goddess Matsu, the Christian God, Virgin Mary and Allah, but there are also many atheists. Even those who worship religious impostors are free to do whatever they want without interference from the authorities, until someone reports possible violations of the law to the police.
The law will only be used against religious activities that cause danger or damage to people or the environment. Anyone who thinks a referendum can change that has a very vivid imagination.
Referendums are a matter of choosing between different political systems and policies, and between different lifestyles. Sri Lanka was called Ceylon in the past and Cambodia used to be known as Kampuchea. Who said a nation’s name cannot be changed?
The US national flag has changed from having only 13 stars to having 15, 20, 48, 49 and eventually 50 stars. New Zealand has had two referendums on whether to change its national flag, in 2015 and last year. Who said the national flag cannot be changed?
As a country’s name, national flag and national anthem can all be changed, anything can be changed. If the legislature cannot decide whether the nation should adopt a presidential, a parliamentary or a semipresidential system, that could certainly be decided through a referendum.
Likewise, if legislators are too lazy to decide whether the voting age should be lowered from 20 to 18, why not let voters decide in a referendum?
Major social issues typically prompt different groups to call for different aspects to be prioritized — which could be anything from the environment to the economy and transitional justice — and there are always two sides to the coin.
Some support nuclear power, some oppose it, and the same applies to building casinos and many other things. Instead of allowing the debate to drag on as different groups take to the streets to promote their views, why not solve the problem in a referendum?
After all, is it not the true spirit of democracy to make important decisions together and share the responsibility for the consequences, no matter how things turn out?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education and former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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