With the rejection of all four items, the “referendum chaos” has finally come to an end.
The results have not only removed barricades that hampered Taiwan furthering its engagement with the international community, they also showed how rational public policy discourses can prevail, and how Taiwanese can forge ahead with national development and stay clear of partisan infighting.
Voters have made pragmatic and balanced choices on issues such as environmental protection and economic development, food safety and participation in international trade, separating general elections and referendums, and energy transition.
The “no” on all four referendum questions has demonstrated that Taiwan’s democracy has matured, and it is as much of a triumph for Taiwanese as it is for the nation’s political system.
Ahead of the vote, the “yes” campaigns had been taking the moral high ground, enough to mislead uninformed voters with high ideals. Who on earth would oppose the protection of an algal reef or keeping pork with traces of a feed additive off the market?
However, after some deeper reflection on the issues, Taiwanese started to understand their weight and consequences. If the four referendum items had passed, Taiwan would have suffered a major setback.
Taiwan is in a “golden phase,” with economic growth of likely more than 6 percent and GDP per capita likely reaching US$32,000, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The export rate has reached an all-time high, while the revenue of listed companies is expected to total about NT$4.1 trillion (US$147.5 billion) this year.
Meanwhile, the US has been reinforcing its supply chain partnership with Taiwan, and has been the nation’s strongest ally in deterring the threat of invasion by China. Taiwan-friendly countries, such as Japan, EU members and Australia, have also voiced support.
Had the pork referendum passed, it would have meant that Taiwan would not be playing by the rules of fair trade with the US. Taiwan’s failure would have undermined the possibility of a deeper bilateral economic and trade partnership with Washington, as well as held the nation back in its bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The third liquefied natural gas terminal can increase the share of electricity generated from gas and lower the air pollution from coal-powered plants. When finalizing the terminal’s design, the government greatly reduced its size — compared with its original design, drafted when former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was in office — and moved the terminal farther away from the shore, as it is seeking to reduce potential damage to the algal reef.
Had the gas terminal project been suspended or relocated, it would have slowed down Taiwan’s energy transition and might have affected the flourishing semiconductor industry.
These dire consequences were not explicitly stated in the referendum questions, but they would have burdened the entire nation.
It was the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) responsibility to give Taiwanese a clear picture of the issues at hand in the referendums. To avert referendum results that are detrimental to national advancement, the governing party put all its resources into its campaign to secure the benefit of Taiwanese.
In the referendums held alongside local elections in 2018, the DPP adopted a low-key approach, seeking to avoid stirring controversy and influencing the elections. This approach backfired, resulting in a major debacle — in the elections and the referendums — which was due in part to the chaos that ensued when both were held together.
For this year’s referendums, the government had all hands on deck, from President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to civil servants and public interest groups. All have contributed to the campaign so that Taiwanese could understand the pros and cons of the issues, and the DPP succeeded in turning the tide.
The DPP now has to turn its attention to battling “retributive recalls” and to stabilize the system.
However, the referendums have also brought to the fore the importance of reforming the referendum system.
The system was implemented less than 20 years ago. Originally, the number of signatures a proposal had to garner to be put to the vote — at least 5 percent of the number of eligible voters in the most recent presidential election — was too high. When a proposal was accepted, it did not just have to garner more “yes” than “no” votes, it was also required that at least 50 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.
These high thresholds made it virtually impossible for a referendum to pass, and the regulations were dubbed a “birdcage referendum law.”
The Referendum Act (公民投票法) was amended in 2017, but lawmakers overcompensated for its problems, slashing the proposal threshold from five percent to 1.5 percent and the voter turnout threshold to 25 percent.
The amendment opened the cage and let the birds out. The lower thresholds had the appearance of encouraging Taiwanese to engage in direct democracy, but they also opened the system for misuse and subversion of the spirit of majority rule.
For example, the 25 percent turnout threshold has landed Taiwan in the absurd situation that one-quarter of the population can now decide the future of the other three-quarters.
It only makes sense that referendums concerning the welfare of the public and the direction in which the nation is headed should enjoy majority support; if Taiwan allows a situation to emerge in which a vocal minority determines the future of a silent majority, the nation risks the collapse of majority rule and the emergence of more political conflict.
In addition, any referendum proposal should be subject to a legal review process, which would ensure that the outcome would not contravene the Constitution, human rights and international law, and allow experts to give their opinions on its consequences.
In this light, the Referendum Act is in dire need of amendment, and the government should move boldly and swiftly to address the problems and implement the needed reform.
As Tsai has said, referendums are the expression of the will of the public; they are not an issue of winning or losing.
Unfortunately, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫), who promoted the four referendums as a battle between Taiwan’s two largest political parties, has clearly not reflected on the increasing distance between the KMT and mainstream public opinion, saying that “the referendum is dead,” instead of admitting defeat.
Chu also followed Ma in saying that Taiwan is becoming an “illiberal democracy” and called the Tsai administration an “autocratic government pretending to be a democracy.”
If he insists upon this approach, not only would he fail to get to the bottom of why the KMT failed in its referendum drive, but it would also be of no help in alleviating the enmity between the largest opposition party and the governing party, and impede concerted action on the China problem.
Chu’s inability to address the issue of Beijing threatening “unification by force” and his insistence on irrational opposition will only make Taiwan’s situation more chaotic.
Fighting between the KMT and DPP ahead of the referendums has further widened the rift between them. Responsible politicians should not be looking to pass the buck, searching for who to blame and thinking of ways to “get even.” They should instead extend an olive branch and look for ways to reform the system, trying to achieve a better future for Taiwan.
Translated by Rita Wang and Paul Cooper
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS