In addition to theoretical reasoning, looking back at the following three major events of the 1990s will help us to maintain a realistic perspective when we think over the controversy surrounding a proposed plebiscite and referendum law in a rational manner.
DPP Legislator Trong Chai (蔡同榮) and pro-independence groups led a major march on Sept. 8, 1991, calling for Taiwan's entry into the UN as an independent country. The number of people who participated in the march rivaled that of another protest, on April 17 of the same year, against constitutional amendments introduced by the KMT.
It was a time when the DPP and pro-independence groups had a close relationship. In the summer of 1991, the two held meetings with each other on the creation of a new Constitution. They also called for the demand for a referendum to be incorporated into the DPP party charter.
A public demonstration in 1998 appealed for a plebiscite. Because the general atmosphere at that time did not allow for a detailed investigation of lawmaking problems, the DPP and like-minded groups believed that the end result would be realization of the people's right to self-determination.
Next, when the KMT and DPP worked together in 1997 to amend the Constitution, they reached agreement at a senior level that the people should be legally entitled to exercise a right to call for a plebiscite on national affairs. This idea was written into both parties' individual draft proposals for constitutional amendments.
Although the New Party offered a different version, they basically agreed with the KMT and DPP that the people may exercise the right of referendum. They also froze a clause in Article 27 of the constitution that the National Assembly has the right of initiative and referendum.
In addition, the DPP version of the proposal added that the president may demand a referendum for any national policy of great concern, including the proposed constitutional amendments.
But the focus that year was on freezing the provincial government and the abolition of the Legislative Yuan's power of veto over the president's choice of premier. The proposals concerning the referendum were therefore stillborn.
Third, in the spring of 1999 there was a hunger strike in front of the Legislative Yuan to advocate a referendum law. Many legislators and leading social activists participated. The then KMT legislator Eugene Jao (
Although the proposal stated that referendums would mostly be used to solve sovereignty issues and might "touch off confrontations," it added that they might also "change the present condition of separation."
The proposal was pretty comprehensive, with various clauses related to procedures, results, litigation and penalties. The only items not included were clauses on budget, land taxes, wages and personnel matters.
If the Constitution is the foundation for the operations of a multi-party system in contemporary Taiwan, the pan-blue and pan-green camps have a common responsibility to implement those articles of the constitution that stipulate that "the people shall have the right of election, recall, initiative and referendum," and that "the exercise of the rights of initiative and referendum shall be prescribed by law."
The people should take action against those political figures who flagrantly violate these constitutional articles and usurp the people's rights.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Academia Sinica's Institute of Modern History and vice chairman of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Grace Shaw
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS