In any other country, if a referendum were held and 94 percent of those who voted approved it, it would be considered a great success. That is not the case in Taiwan, however, which has unusually high requirements for success.
For the results of a referendum to be valid, 50 percent of all eligible voters must pick up and cast a ballot in a referendum, and 50 percent of those who cast a ballot must approve it.
Herein lies the problem. The first big hurdle for the UN referendums, which were held in conjunction with the presidential election, was to garner 50 percent of all eligible voters -- not 50 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the election.
That meant that since not all eligible voters turned out for the election, the referendum was already in danger of not passing.
Referendums have various requirements. They may or may not have a prerequisite that voter turnout be a certain percentage of the electorate. The Danish model requires 40 percent of the electorate. In some cases, a referendum can pass simply if the majority of those who vote approve it and there have been cases where a referendum has passed with as little as 8 percent of the electorate voting.
The Canadian government does not accept referendums as automatically binding; Quebec's referendum to secede from Canada in 1995 required a simple "50 percent plus one" majority. It barely missed the mark and had many worried.
Taiwan has had six referendums since it began directly electing its president and not one of these has passed. They have all failed, not because the majority of those voting did not approve them, but because an insufficient number of those eligible to vote picked up ballots. This is what happened to the two referendums on applying for UN membership.
In the referendum proposed by the Democratic Progressive Party, 6,201,677 people cast ballots and 5,529,230 approved the referendum. Another 352,359 people turned it down and 320,088 cast invalid ballots. The approval rate was 94.01 percent. Yet while more than 5.5 million people approved it, the referendum needed more than 8 million voters for the results to be valid.
A similar defeat was dealt to the UN referendum proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its approval rate was 87.27 percent.
The purpose of referendums is to express the public's opinion, but because of the requirements, the results may be misinterpreted. There may be many reasons why eligible voters did not pick up ballots. Referendums may be used to mobilize voters towards a party's agenda.
If one party proposes a referendum, the opposition can counter it by encouraging voters not to pick up a ballot. In this way, party voters will not go on record as voting against a given proposition, but they will nevertheless have defeated the referendum simply by denying it sufficient voters.
In recent polls, more than 80 percent of the public said the nation should have representation at the UN, yet most eligible voters did not pick up ballots in the UN referendums.
Laws governing referendums must be reformed to ensure that referendums can be employed to gauge public opinion.
Until that happens, many -- including foreign media -- can easily misinterpret the results of the UN referendums and other plebiscites in Taiwan.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS