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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS