In a referendum on Sunday last week, Chileans voted with an overwhelming majority of 78.3 percent in favor of writing a new constitution to replace one that has been in place since the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.
In Taiwan, the Constitution written and implemented by the old authoritarian regime remains firmly in place.
Not only is there a high threshold for constitutional amendments, there is also a ban on holding a referendum on whether to write a new constitution.
The Chilean constitution does not restrict the scope of a referendum, and Chileans can use referendums to decide on issues of sovereignty, and civil and other rights.
Chileans aged 18 or older and foreigners with permanent residency in Chile can vote in a referendum.
In Taiwan, Article 136 of the Constitution restricts the scope of referendums, saying: “The exercise of the rights of initiative and referendum shall be prescribed by law.”
In other words, referendums can only bring about new laws that do not contradict the Constitution.
The Referendum Act (公民投票法) also stipulates that the public can only initiate the process of writing new laws or major policies, but they cannot initiate the writing of a new constitution.
Although opinion polls show that 80 percent of Taiwanese are in favor of a new constitution, it remains impossible for the public to set in motion a process leading to a new one.
The only route forward is a referendum on a policy recommendation.
For example, the Taiwan Constitution Foundation’s referendum proposal for a new constitution utilizes an indirect question: “Do you agree that a request should be made that the president should promote the formulation of a new constitution in line with Taiwan’s status quo?”
Even after the abolition of the National Assembly, Taiwanese have lacked the right to directly participate in constitutional amendments.
If the public would like to initiate a constitutional referendum, they must first face examination by the Central Election Committee.
If there is any conflict of interest between the public and the government, the committee can easily come up with reasons, and excuses, to reject a referendum request.
The act gives much leeway to the government and does not represent the spirit of public political participation.
A referendum should be a symbol of self-governance and the freedom of expression of public opinion.
The narrow scope of a referendum in Taiwan is preposterous and not in line with the principle of popular sovereignty.
Taiwan is proud of its democracy and rule of law, but the referendum system lags behind Chile’s.
Taiwan’s government will hopefully pay more attention to mainstream public opinion.
Yang Chun-chieh is a graduate student at National Tsing-Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS