Saturday’s four referendums have caused a catfight between supporters and opponents, when, strictly speaking, the four questions are not even fit to be put to referendums, which are designed to make up for shortcomings in the legislature.
Moreover, such questions should be comprehensible and accessible to the public, not overly complicated.
For example, the third question regarding restarting construction at the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮) directly concerns only people who reside in the area, while people in southern areas might not give their vote on the issue due consideration.
Similarly, the question over relocating a liquefied natural gas terminal project to protect algal reefs in Taoyuan has little bearing on people who live elsewhere in Taiwan.
Supporters of the referendum should not assume that others will follow suit just because it is in the name of environmental protection, because there are issues of the economy, air pollution and ecological balance to consider.
The four questions are not beyond the power of the legislative process, but malicious politicians have used the referendums to start a partisan catfight.
If every minor issue is put to a referendum, what is the purpose of the legislature and local councils?
If even experts differ over how to vote in the referendums, how can the public be expected to understand the issues clearly?
Some say that the Referendum Act (公民投票法) has been a sham since the legislature in 2017 lowered the threshold for proposing questions. If the act is amended so that referendums are again held alongside general elections, chaos can once again be expected at polling stations in next year’s legislative elections and in the 2024 presidential election.
The legislature’s 2017 revisions reduced the first-round proposal threshold from 0.005 to 0.0001 of the electorate in the most recent presidential election. For example, if the total electorate was 17 million, 1,700 signatures would be required — not a difficult task to achieve.
The second-round threshold was lowered from 5 to 1.5 percent of the electorate, which based on the 17 million figure would be 255,000 signatures, a walk in the park for a top political party.
A referendum passes if one-quarter of eligible people cast a “yes” vote, and the number of “yes” votes surpasses “no” votes, meaning that a party needs to mobilize 4.25 million people, with the final result depending on which side gets more votes.
For politicians who want to use referendums to start a partisan fight, such easy thresholds are too good to pass up. No matter which party is in office, the act will continue to be a thorn in the flesh if it is not amended.
Political hacks are happy to promote restarting the construction at the hazardous Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in the name of energy production, while also opposing the natural gas terminal. They put protecting reefs above energy production and, apparently, above the lives of Taiwanese.
If this is not political strife, then I do not know what is.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Rita Wang
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS