Referendum on Nuclear Phase-Out Approved, But Critics Question Legal Basis

Taiwan's Central Election Commission has approved a referendum on "abolishing the nuclear-free homeland" for the upcoming year-end elections, while rejecting two other proposals concerning "corporal punishment" and "dedicated traffic fines." This decision has sparked debate about the role and appropriateness of referendums in the legislative process.

Lai Chung-chiang, convenor of the Economic Democracy Alliance think tank, expressed strong reservations about the approved referendum. He argued that referendums are intended to supplement the shortcomings of representative democracy, not to replace the legislative branch's core functions. Lai believes that if lawmakers wish to create or overturn laws, they should do so through legislative amendments rather than relying on public votes.

“

Referendums are intended to supplement the shortcomings of representative democracy. If they want to create or overturn laws, the Legislative Yuan can amend the law itself. The Legislative Yuan should not shirk its responsibilities and unnecessarily ask the people to vote.

The commission's decision to reject the "corporal punishment" and "dedicated traffic fines" referendums was deemed constitutional and legal by Lai. However, he suggested that the approval of the "nuclear-free homeland" referendum was primarily a political calculation. Lai posited that the commission likely allowed this proposal to proceed to avoid direct confrontation with the majority in the Legislative Yuan, which is currently dominated by parties supporting the referendum.

Lai further elaborated that the "nuclear-free homeland" referendum is legally tenuous. He pointed out that Article 23 of the "Environmental Basic Law" already mandates the government to establish plans for achieving a nuclear-free homeland. If parties oppose this direction, they should propose amendments to the existing law in the legislature, rather than pushing for a public vote. He speculated that the commission's political consideration was to prevent a clash with the legislative majority.

“

The Central Election Commission's rejection of the first two proposals is completely constitutional and legal. Allowing the nuclear-free homeland proposal to pass is likely a political judgment to avoid confronting the legislative majority.