Article 17 of the newly passed Referendum Law (公民投票法) states that "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which may change its national sovereignty, the president may, following a resolution by the Executive Yuan, place national security matters before the public for decision in a referendum." This is the basis of a "preventive referendum" (防衛性公投) -- or "defensive referendum" (防禦性公投) -- which has been debated by the ruling and opposition camps, and has attracted attention from both China and the US.
Article 17 clearly empowers the president to initiate a referendum by following the Cabinet's resolution, which does not have to go through the referendum review committee.
It's also necessary to clarify the argument over the premise for launching a preventive referendum. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said that Article 17 should be a "defensive," not a "provocative" one. They also said that although China has deployed 496 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, the missiles are not an instant threat that may change Taiwan's sovereignty.
I can't help but wonder: as presidential and vice presidential candidates, what exactly are Lien's and Soong's perspectives on national sovereignty? What are the missiles if they are not considered an external threat? Won't Taiwan's national dignity be damaged if politicians do not take external threats seriously but only criticize their political rivals?
Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has even claimed that Article 17 should not be taken as a tool to consolidate the people's consensus, because this does not tally with the article's original purpose. He seems to be completely opposed to the existence of the article. Otherwise, how could he downgrade a matter of national sovereignty to the level of general policies?
A referendum is a demonstration of the constitutional principle of "sovereignty resides in the people," which ensures that they can directly exercise their basic civil rights. It's a nation's last legitimate political measure for consolidating the people's consensus. How could Ma describe this as "rarely seen in the referendum history of the world?" It's a pity that he made such ignorant comments in public.
How should the people view the legitimacy of a "preventive referendum?"
First, such a referendum is used to protect our national sovereignty, keeping it from being changed or damaged. The fact is the PRC is obviously attempting to change our sovereignty by pen and sword. It has humiliated us by saying that Taiwan's sovereignty does not exist, and has tried to annex the island, while shamelessly bribing the people with its "one county, two systems" plan.
In my opinion, the former KMT government neglected its duty to seriously handle this threat. Today, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) decision to launch a preventive referendum so as to secure national sovereignty is a legitimate one.
Next, since a preventive referendum is used to protect national sovereignty, it should not necessarily change Taiwan's sover-eignty. A preventive referendum is used to consolidate the people's consensus in opposing China's unification propaganda. It's clearer and more reasonable to call it an "anti-unification referendum."
Finally, a preventive referendum is actually a referendum that seeks peace. It's also an appeal made by the people of this nation to the world to demand that it squarely face the fact that "autocratic China has deployed almost 500 missiles aimed at democratic Taiwan."
Thus, a referendum to urge China to withdraw its missiles tallies with humanity.
Michael Hsiao is the executive director of the Center of Asia-Pacific Area Studies at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS