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 event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS