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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers