As the dust settles following Saturday’s referendums, some facts are emerging.
First, none of the four referendums secured the legally required threshold and, despite this, the majority of voters ticked “no” for all four proposals — the position that was the most beneficial to Taiwan and was advocated for by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party.
Although the government’s policies on energy, international trade and holding referendums separately from major elections can now continue, the only clear result was on the question of whether to restart construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮).
In the three others, the number of “no” votes was on average only 3 percent higher than the number of “yes” votes.
The referendums were clearly initiated with the intention of rattling the governing party, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was quite explicit in saying that it was trying to “teach the DPP a lesson.”
In the absence of any substantial scientific evidence to back up its position on any of the issues, the KMT relied solely on populist, divisive tactics to persuade people to vote “yes.” It succeeded in Keelung and Taoyuan, where the “yes” votes on all four questions exceeded the “no” votes.
The results in those cities were particularly bad for the DPP, which had the advantage of having the resources of the president, the mayors, the local party organization and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party working for it.
It cannot lay claim to victory on a national level: At best, it can say that it did not lose.
The results are a major warning sign for proponents of localization: They can in no way afford to let their guard down for the coming by-election in Taichung’s second electoral district or independent Legislator Freddie Lim’s (林昶佐) recall vote.
Even though the KMT was unable to produce a unified front in its referendum campaign, the number of “yes” votes it managed to drum up suggests that its approach of stirring up enmity against, and a lack of trust in, the governing party did pay dividends, and the pan-blue camp is likely to continue pursuing this strategy.
Most notably, the KMT has started to attack Taiwan’s democracy by weaving distortions of the truth into its narrative.
In a speech after the referendum results were confirmed, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) did not call for a cessation of the hostility or for Taiwanese to try to heal rifts, but further stoked social tensions.
He said that “the referendum is dead” and called the DPP “an autocratic government,” promoting the absurd, populist contention that “distrust of the government” is somehow equal to democracy.
The atmosphere of enmity created ahead of the referendums is likely to be fanned in the coming weeks and months, constituting a real threat to Taiwan’s democracy and freedoms.
The referendums were initiated to aid political manipulation in the name of the democratic process.
Had the four referendums passed, especially those involving energy sources and international trade, the results would have been disastrous for Taiwan.
Disregarding Taiwan’s best interests and wasting national resources, the referendums not only failed to mitigate the shortcomings of the legislature through direct democracy, they wasted huge amounts of time and resources.
At the same time, the referendums revealed that Taiwan’s civil society is not yet mature and its international outlook still needs reinforcing after so many years of the nation being marginalized, with the ability of Taiwanese to have independent thoughts being curtailed by years of rote learning in the education system.
However, there are some internal factors that are serving as a natural immunity, protecting Taiwan’s democracy, issues that Taiwanese must face head on if they are to ensure that Taiwan’s democracy and freedoms continue to thrive.
Hong Tsun-ming is director of the Taiwan Statebuilding Party’s Yilan County branch.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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