As expected, the legislature has done the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) bidding and “corrected” the Referendum Act (公民投票法) so that it cannot be used to create a “Taiwanese” constitution, change the nation’s name or decide the nation’s future.
Complete, open and unlimited referendum rights are a fundamental component of a free society. Without comprehensive referendum rights, Taiwanese are not true masters, nor are they truly free: They are simply slaves of the DPP — and of external forces.
The result of the amendment to the Referendum Act tells us that every single one of the DPP legislators shares the guilt for depriving Taiwanese of comprehensive referendum rights and the right to become free. The DPP has become a political and economic comprador that stands between external forces and Taiwanese.
If the Referendum Act really is a procedural act, as the DPP has said, then it should not contain any exclusion clauses.
Supporting a comprehensive, open and unrestricted Referendum Act means supporting Taiwanese democracy, freedom and human rights.
It is not the same as supporting a referendum on Taiwanese independence, nor does it mean supporting Taiwanese independence — it simply means supporting the fundamental right of Taiwanese to choose.
If the DPP fears that Taiwanese would write their own constitution, there is ample opportunity for the party to oppose their pursuit of independence and autonomy.
Consider the creation of a Taiwanese constitution as an example. Every stage of the process — from the initialization, proposal, signature drive, acceptance and debate to a vote on a constitutional referendum — offers the DPP an opportunity to oppose the measure. There is no need to remove the public’s right to choose by amending the act.
Crippling the right of Taiwanese to choose in this way is even worse than opposing the creation of a new constitution or the right of Taiwanese to self-determination.
The “correction” to the Referendum Act shows that the DPP has closed the door on peaceful and non-violent self-determination within the framework of the established system.
From now on, the DPP will have to shoulder all responsibility for any violence or social unrest that results from Taiwanese pursuing a new constitution and a new national name.
The process that led to the “correction” to the act shows that every DPP legislator either silently accepts or loudly agrees to follow every order issued by the party’s leader, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).
This makes one wonder whether the DPP is still a democratic party or if it has become just another party that will deceive and engage in “democratic” centralism to serve its agenda.
The “correction” to the act shows that there are no longer any factions within the DPP that are working toward democracy, freedom, self-determination or, of course, independence. The only factions left in the DPP are those that do what they are told and those that want to further their own interests.
I have supported the democracy movement, through the tangwai (黨外, outside the party) movement and then the DPP for the past 40 years, but today I must finally accept that the DPP is possessed by an evil demon.
It is no longer the DPP that I once knew.
Until an exorcist ousts this evil demon from the party, I can only say: “Bye bye, DPP.”
Lin Kien-tsu is a member of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
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
RSS