Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and a number of members of the pan-blue camp have expressed their opposition to combining a referendum on joining the UN and the presidential elections in March.
They claim that combining the two would damage public confidence in the presidential election. They also argue that if the presidential election and the referendum are conducted at the same time, there is a risk that polling station workers might hand out the wrong ballots or that voters might cast the wrong ballot or vote on the wrong ballot, giving rise to disputes over the outcome of the polls.
We can't help but ask -- what is the KMT afraid of?
From a legal point of view, combining the presidential election and the referendum is a good idea. Based on the voter threshold stipulated by the Referendum Act (公民投票法), it would take more than 8 million valid votes for the proposal to pass. The rules on the percentage of votes required for approval are strict, and the threshold is even higher than in most countries.
Holding a referendum independently would entail the mobilization of a large number of resources. It therefore makes more sense to hold the referendum together with national elections, such as the presidential poll, to save on material and personnel costs.
Combining the presidential election and the referendum is also more practical. The pan-blue camp's concerns about voters receiving the wrong ballots or casting the wrong ballots are superficial to say the least. Does the KMT think that voters and polling station workers are stupid?
Holding simultaneous elections and distributing more than one ballot on election day is nothing new.
The first legislative elections in 1989 after the lifting of martial law was held in conjunction with the mayoral, county commissioner and provincial councilor elections, with voters receiving both ballots at the same time.
This was followed in 1994 by twin elections for Taipei and Kaohsiung mayors and city councilors, and in 1998 by the legislative elections, together with the Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral and city councilor elections.
Since 2001, there have been five instances in which two or even three elections were combined. In all cases, separate ballots were issued, and no one ever said this influenced the neutrality of the vote or stopped voters from voting as they wanted.
The situation was different in 2004, when the defense referendum was held together with the presidential election. Voters were supposed to cast their vote for the presidential election and then pick up the ballot for the referendum.
However, there were charges that some polling station workers deliberately misled voters by telling them that they could leave after they had cast their ballot for the presidential election. As such, some voters lost their opportunity to vote in the referendum.
Moreover, as the ballots were handed out separately, whether a voter picked up the ballot for the referendum revealed their attitude toward the referendum, thus violating the principle of confidentiality.
Globally, holding more than one vote on more than one issue at the same time is common.
An example is the referendum in Switzerland on May 18, 2003, when the Swiss voted on nine issues. There were two votes about a law on government reforms, and seven questions brought forward on the initiative of the public. Given the number of issues involved, the Swiss dubbed that day "Super Sunday."
Combining referendums with a presidential election is normal in democratic countries.
In 2000, 204 referendums were held in 42 states in the US in combination with the presidential election that year.
In 2004, 162 referendums in 34 states were combined with the presidential election. Neither case gave rise to claims that this might incite election disputes.
In short, multiple elections, multiple referendums on different issues or even multiple referendums combined with national elections are all very common around the world.
Organizing elections this way not only saves money, but is also a good way to gauge public opinion. As such, it is difficult to understand why the KMT is afraid of combining the UN referendum with the presidential election.
Is it because the party hopes that the referendum will fail to meet the required threshold and be declared invalid? Or is it because it doesn't want the nation to apply for UN membership or hold a referendum on its stolen assets in conjunction with the legislative elctions in January?
But perhaps the only reasonable explanation is that the KMT is afraid of Taiwanese exerting their power.
Chou Yung-hong is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of Youth Development.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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