In a referendum on Sunday last week, Chileans voted with an overwhelming majority of 78.3 percent in favor of writing a new constitution to replace one that has been in place since the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.
In Taiwan, the Constitution written and implemented by the old authoritarian regime remains firmly in place.
Not only is there a high threshold for constitutional amendments, there is also a ban on holding a referendum on whether to write a new constitution.
The Chilean constitution does not restrict the scope of a referendum, and Chileans can use referendums to decide on issues of sovereignty, and civil and other rights.
Chileans aged 18 or older and foreigners with permanent residency in Chile can vote in a referendum.
In Taiwan, Article 136 of the Constitution restricts the scope of referendums, saying: “The exercise of the rights of initiative and referendum shall be prescribed by law.”
In other words, referendums can only bring about new laws that do not contradict the Constitution.
The Referendum Act (公民投票法) also stipulates that the public can only initiate the process of writing new laws or major policies, but they cannot initiate the writing of a new constitution.
Although opinion polls show that 80 percent of Taiwanese are in favor of a new constitution, it remains impossible for the public to set in motion a process leading to a new one.
The only route forward is a referendum on a policy recommendation.
For example, the Taiwan Constitution Foundation’s referendum proposal for a new constitution utilizes an indirect question: “Do you agree that a request should be made that the president should promote the formulation of a new constitution in line with Taiwan’s status quo?”
Even after the abolition of the National Assembly, Taiwanese have lacked the right to directly participate in constitutional amendments.
If the public would like to initiate a constitutional referendum, they must first face examination by the Central Election Committee.
If there is any conflict of interest between the public and the government, the committee can easily come up with reasons, and excuses, to reject a referendum request.
The act gives much leeway to the government and does not represent the spirit of public political participation.
A referendum should be a symbol of self-governance and the freedom of expression of public opinion.
The narrow scope of a referendum in Taiwan is preposterous and not in line with the principle of popular sovereignty.
Taiwan is proud of its democracy and rule of law, but the referendum system lags behind Chile’s.
Taiwan’s government will hopefully pay more attention to mainstream public opinion.
Yang Chun-chieh is a graduate student at National Tsing-Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS