While the Cabinet is assessing the feasibility of holding a consultative referendum along with the presidential election next year and planning to make the final decision in early July, the US has reportedly expressed its concern, a response that has sparked debate from all corners. Now all the voices supporting or opposing this idea are focusing on the referendum itself. Few have discussed the impact of the timing and the choice of topics on the presidential election.
Holding a consultative referendum alongside the presidential election amounts to mixing a vote on persons and a vote on issues. The biggest controversy is that it might affect the fairness of the election. On the surface, the presidential election and the referendum are two different matters. But when they are held together, the atmosphere created by the referendum might sway the election results.
In particular, amid the fierce competition, if a small percentage of voters change their minds due to the atmosphere of a plebiscite, the result of the presidential election might be completely reversed.
So the point of the dispute is, in the absence of a legal basis, there are no objective standards to regulate the timing for holding a referendum. If a referendum is launched hastily, suspicions might be raised that this is this government's electoral strategy in an attempt at unfair competition.
For instance, the two issues for plebiscites proposed and selected by the government are the nation's entry bid into the World Health Organization (WHO) and the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. The outside world has been questioning why only these two topics were chosen. How about issues related to educational reform, the double rise in National Health Insurance fees, plastic bags, the high-speed railway and direct links with China? Why can't these be the plebiscite issues? What are the standards?
The two government-proposed issues for referendums have not undergone a discrete procedure. It is no surprise that the outside world has criticized the government for using public resources to enhance the popularity of a specific candidate. If democracy is really taken into consideration, the selection of issues for plebiscites should tally with democratic procedures. It is inappropriate for the government to decide on its own.
Until now, unfortunately, the Cabinet has never consulted the outside world's opinions as to whether there are other issues to be included on a referendum. We hope that the government can be more democratic in deciding on the issues to be determined by the referendum.
As for the timing for a consultative referendum, it is inappropriate to coincide with the presidential election. In the run-up to the election next year, presidential candidates from all political parties will put forth their campaign platforms, including those on the WHO entry bid and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Through debates, voters will be able to understand the candidates' positions and show their support or opposition at the ballot box.
If the presidential election and the referendum are held together, the referendum issues might be magnified in an unreasonable way, indirectly suppressing other issues and therefore diverting voters' attention. This will narrow the space for discussing other issues.
If the Cabinet picks one or two topics and holds a referendum during the presidential election, suspicions will arise that it is trying to influence the election. Although the results are hard to predict, the fairness of the election will definitely be questioned.
Some might say that there are precedents in other democracies where elections and plebiscites are held together. Since other nations can do it, why can't Taiwan? This argument sounds very reasonable but it neglects one fact -- in other nations, it is practiced on a legal basis. To be included in a referendum agenda, an issue must cross several thresholds to comply with the rigid legal requirements so as to establish the legitimacy of referendums.
For example, a referendum initiated by the public must be endorsed by a certain number of supporters in a signature drive. If the number of supporters is insufficient, the case can not be established. If the referendum is initiated by the government, the matters to be decided in the referendum are already detailed in the Constitution or law. The government must not arbitrarily choose topics for plebiscites.
Whether referendums are launched by the government or the public, they must conform to legal procedures. I've never heard about an instance where, during elections, the government picks a topic or two they prefer and hold a non-binding referendum. Who will believe the argument that this has nothing to do with the presidential election? The government must be careful to avoid such suspicions.
If a referendum law is enacted in Taiwan, disputes about fairness will not arise when the referendum and the presidential election are held together in line with legal conditions.
All in all, there is no doubt that holding referendums is the direct exercise of civil rights. But the problem of fairness should be considered in the selection of issues and timing. Due to unification-independence factors, holding referendums has been a taboo in Taiwan. A referendum law has not been enacted yet. Moreover, the US and China also oppose the practice.
Now since the Cabinet wants to try out a consultative referendum, it should collect opinions from all corners and avoid the sensitive timing of the presidential election. This can highlight the positive significance of referendums and drum up support from society. If the two principles can be held up, I believe the obstacles to a consultative referendum will greatly decrease.
Kao Lang is a professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US