The results of the 10 referendums held alongside the Nov. 24 nine-in-one elections have been described as a major defeat for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The defeat of the proposal to have the national team compete at the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics using the name “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei” was a heavy blow to many who have advocated using a referendum to achieve formal independence and a new “sovereign” state.
If not even a referendum on the name of the Olympic team could pass — the proposal that has the least political baggage — then the Formosa Alliance should think twice before putting all its eggs in one basket and proposing referendums on independence and UN participation.
The unprecedented “referendum turmoil” might not be a bad thing and could even give the DPP an opportunity to extricate itself from its current political dilemma. Holding a referendum to let people directly express their views is the best, and perhaps only, way to stop wasting social resources on highly controversial issues on which there is no social consensus.
Even the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has had a drastic change of heart: After viewing referendums as a horrendous scourge, it put forward three proposals — against air pollution, food imports from areas in Japan and the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
A referendum is a double-edged sword. Seven passed last month: The ones already mentioned and four others on using nuclear power to smoothen the transition to green energy, continuing to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the Civil Code, banning education on homosexuality in elementary and junior-high schools, and defining the rights of same-sex couples in a separate law.
The next issue is dealing with the discrepancy between the ideals behind and real-life implications of the referendums on Japanese food imports, nuclear power and air pollution.
For instance, according to the referendum outcomes, Paragraph 1, Article 95 of the Electricity Act (電業法) — the “nuclear-free homeland” clause — should be abolished.
However, the Cabinet has said that the policy remains in place, but without 2025 as a deadline.
This means that the government must slow down implementation of its policy to develop renewable energy — which has caused tensions between local farmers, fishermen and environmentalists — review it and start anew, which is probably a good thing for Taiwan, as well as the DPP.
The referendum on defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman in the Civil Code contradicts the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 748. Although the referendum passed, it cannot change the legal recognition of same-sex unions.
However, the passage of the referendum on defining the rights of same-sex couples in a separate law means that the DPP must follow mainstream public opinion and enact such a law, which should help it out of its predicament.
Perhaps the “referendum turmoil” will cure Taiwan’s collective manic depression and allow all players to calm down, rethink, reflect and initiate new dialogue to resolve conflict.
The DPP, which has been trapped in a seesaw struggle between progressive and conservative forces for the past two years, might also get a chance to resolve its political dilemma, and administer the nation in a more pragmatic and stable manner.
For Taiwan, this could be a blessing in disguise.
John Yu is a civil servant.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing