After months of speculation, lawmakers on Monday passed amendments to the Referendum Act (公民投票法) to decouple referendums from national elections. Starting in 2021, referendums are to be held on the fourth Saturday of August once every two years.
The changes came after the 10 referendums that were held alongside local elections last year created a logistical nightmare, leading to people waiting in lines for hours to cast their votes, as well as delayed results.
After the amendments were passed, opposition lawmakers said “referendums are dead,” saying that the changes would make it nearly impossible for any referendum to pass. However, their reasoning is unclear. It seemed that voters last year were highly interested in the referendums, as discussions over referendum questions overshadowed those about the elections, especially among young people who claim political apathy, but still care about social issues.
However, choosing the nation’s leaders and lawmakers is more important and consequential than voting in referendums, and the two are better off held separately, so that enough attention is paid to both. Otherwise, referendums can easily become a tool for politicians and interest groups to further their agenda, use the issues to sway voters or influence their constituents.
Fortunately, the government dropped a clause from the amendments that would have required people to present photocopies of their national IDs when signing referendum petitions, as the cons outweigh the pros in this case. Taiwanese are generally leery of handing out their personal information, for good reason, and the requirement could have deterred people from participating in referendums, even though it would have prevented voter fraud.
In addition to not everyone carrying their IDs with them at all times, obtaining a photocopy might be easy in bigger cities like Taipei, but in rural areas people could give up signing a petition instead of walking to the nearest convenience store.
Most importantly, it seems like people need to be educated on the purpose of a referendum, as indicated by the misinformed reactions that were espoused even by politicians and media outlets when the nation legalized same-sex marriage last month.
The most prominent argument put forward by those opposed to marriage equality was that the majority of Taiwanese “rejected” same-sex marriage in a referendum last year and the government pushing it through was a “slap in the face” of public will.
Never mind that that was not even how the questions were worded; it is simply not how a democracy works. Every citizen’s rights are protected by the Constitution and no referendum can undermine that.
That many people still believe this kind of rhetoric raises the question of whether they even knew what they were voting for last year.
It is worrisome that referendums would continue to be used to further the agendas of certain political or interest groups under the guise of improving the nation in accordance with public will.
A lack of awareness is understandable, as barely any referendums were held before amendments to the act greatly lowered the threshold.
It would be two years before there is another referendum and if they are to become a regular occurrence in Taiwan, people will need to learn to discern what they are voting for and the implications of their vote, just like how it is increasingly important for people to differentiate fake news from facts.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily