A lot of Taiwanese think referendums equal populism. They are unaware that direct democracy is gradually becoming an unstoppable trend in democratic countries. This trend arises from the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, and, to a certain extent, from public discontent with party politics.
Although political parties are an indispensable element of modern democratic politics, parties sometimes overlook the public’s wishes as they get caught up in struggles to defend their own interests. Thanks to the higher level of education and availability of better information in democratic states, the public can receive such information through multiple channels without worrying about being manipulated by one or two politicians. Certainly, referendums cannot replace parliamentary democracy, but they are one way of making up for its inadequacies.
The Referendum Act (公民投票法) of 2003 has been criticized for introducing a highly convoluted and complicated process and a very high support threshold that is almost unobtainable unless a referendum proposal is supported by a party. Even if a referendum is accepted, a minimum of half of all eligible voters must vote for it to be valid. As a result, none of the national referendums organized over the past five years were passed.
With this design, the eligible voters who choose not to vote in a referendum are often seen as opposing the referendum. This is also the reason why the Cabinet’s Referendum Review Committee rejected the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s (TSU) request to hold a referendum on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), saying that the proposed referendum question and the reason for the proposal were contradictory.
Theoretically, there could be hundreds or thousands of reasons why the public would support or oppose the proposal. The TSU’s reason for the proposal is just one of those, and as such, cannot represent the thoughts of the other almost 1 million signatories.
Given these circumstances, I have several suggestions as to how the Referendum Act can be improved.
First, abolish the requirement that half of all eligible voters must participate.
Second, simplify the application process. For any issue proposed by 100 people, collection of signatures can begin after obtaining the approval of the Central Election Commission’s.
Third, allow the collection of signatures online. I suggest that the election commission set up a signature area on its official Web site and put all approved proposals online for the public to sign freely. To avoid repetition, the commission could check the Citizen Digital Certificate or ID card numbers of signers. It can also set up a message board next to the area to allow those with different views to express their opinions to further promote discussion and exchange of opinions.
Fourth, lower the required number of signatures in support of a proposal. In Switzerland, a proposal is accepted once 50,000 signatures are collected. Since Taiwan’s population is larger, maybe the threshold should be set at 200,000 signatures. A very high threshold only serves to intensify the opposition between political parties. If every member of the public can express their opinion in this way, the process will involve more information and discussion and party confrontation is likely to decline.
Fifth, abolish the review committee. Since referendums are an expression of the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, the process should be as simple as possible and the government should never seek to restrict the rights of the public.
Hawang Shiow-duan is a professor at Soochow University’s Department of Political Science.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS