Not surprisingly, the Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Committee on Friday rejected the referendum proposal initiated by the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮).
Explaining the reasons for its rejection, the committee said that the proposed referendum question — which asks voters if they agree to installing fuel rods in the plant’s reactors to test their operation — and the statement of reasons for holding the referendum on halting the plant’s construction, are “contradictory and may confuse voters, preventing them from fully understanding the question posed.”
All 13 members of the 21-seat committee who attended the meeting, excluding the chairman, voted against the proposal, citing subsection four of section one in Article 14 of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which states that the committee should reject a plebiscite proposal “where there is any contradiction or obvious error in the content of the proposal, thus making the intention of the proposal not understandable.”
This justification constitutes an exploitation of the act because the committee has misinterpreted the subsection of Article 14.
The subsection is aimed at ensuring that referendum questions are worded in a way that voters can understand so that they know what they are voting on.
Also, a proposal’s statement of reasons presents the initiators’ rationale for wishing to put an issue to a public vote. Any argument made in the statement is meant to assert the necessity of the referendum and should not be used by the committee as a reason to reject the initiative. After all, it is the main text of the proposal, not the statement of reasons, that the public votes on.
More than 120,000 people have backed the proposal with their signatures, support that enabled the proposal to reach the committee. The rejection of the proposal by 13 committee members is not just an abuse of power, but also an infringement on the public’s political rights as protected by the Constitution.
The union’s proposal is the latest casualty in a long list of referendum proposals killed by the committee in recent years, including one initiated by the Democratic Progressive Party in 2009 on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and another one on the same issue proposed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) in 2010.
Last year, a petition submitted by former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) asking for a local referendum in New Taipei City to determine the fate of the power plant was also turned down.
The 2009 proposal was rejected for having a question that “was not clear enough,” among other reasons, while the 2010 proposal was turned down for the same reasons as those cited to reject the environmental group’s petition.
Two months after its first attempt failed, the TSU submitted a revised version of its proposal, addressing the contradictions the committee saw between the original version’s main text and statement of reasons. However, the committee still dismissed the necessity of holding a referendum on the grounds that the question it asked regarding the procedural issues of the ECFA’s signing did not constitute a change in policy.
Lu’s initiative was rejected because the committee said that the nuclear plant’s fate is an issue “of national scale” and therefore a local-level referendum has no validity, which prompted the environmental group to launch a signature drive backing a national referendum proposal using the same main text and statement of reasons as the one Lu proposed.
However, the committee, which initially saw no contradiction between the statement of reasons and the main text in Lu’s initiative, now suddenly found fault with the proposal submitted by the group.
Let there be no more excuses to not hold a referendum once the proposal has met the signature threshold for staging a plebiscite. The rights protected by the Referendum Act need to be respected.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS