Concluding the Nov. 24 referendums peacefully should be considered an advancement of Taiwanese democracy, but the questions were full of long-winded wording that arguably could have confused and misled many voters.
The results do not necessarily represent the public’s opinion, because many voters might not have fully understood what they were voting for, and quite a few were unaware of the risk of casting ballots for a proposal they do not identify with.
Take for example the topic of using nuclear power to promote “green” energy. Many people simply took it as “to cultivate renewable energy,” which is a good way to enable the country to go “green.” Some voters might have thought it was a good idea to transform “bad” nuclear energy into a good energy source.
The government failed to fully explain the issue or the referendum’s likely effect. Its failure to contextualize the topic resulted in the public misunderstanding the issue, which has in turn regrettably damaged the credibility of holding referendums.
Also, the topic of referendum No. 9 — “Do you agree that the government should, in connection to the March 11 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster, continue to enforce the food imports ban on 31 regions in Japan, including agricultural and food products from Fukushima and the surrounding four prefectures and municipalities (Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma and Chiba)?” — should have been left up to the experts.
Asking common people, who are unlikely to have professional knowledge about the issue, to vote on it is problematic.
Taiwan and China are the only two nations that have maintained a ban on food imported from these areas. Could it be that the nation’s regulations on food import control and management are far more rigid than the world standard? Furthermore, who would oppose a referendum proposal that is constantly described as “anti-nuclear-contaminated foods?”
Using long-winded phrases, such as: “Do you agree that the government should maintain the ban on...” is too difficult for some older people to decipher. My mother, for one, voted “yes,” but could not stop feeling remorse after later learning that her vote went against her true will.
Too many political calculations are deployed in referendums with too little explanation from the government, which should have sent out officials to clarify the issues.
By failing to do this, the government allowed groups that are good at scheming to have their way and exploit the trusting nature of the Taiwanese.
Referendums of this kind could hardly be considered representative of public opinion.
The government should rely on the knowledge of experts instead of using referendums as an excuse to implement policies.
If the government really wants its policymaking to reflect the views of the public and be supported by them, it should have at least taken a neutral stance and hired experts to spend time explaining the pros and cons of both sides prior to holding referendums.
Only after fully understanding the proposals can voters make their own judgements and cast ballots in ways that truly reflect their positions.
The government should also work on eliminating imprecision and misleading traps in question wordings, while facing the proposals with due sincerity. This way, holding a referendum would have true value and the results would be persuasive.
Jane Ywe-hwan is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Japanese at National Pingtung University.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS