Taiwan's politicized 'referendum' fails voters

Voters in Taiwan have rejected a "referendum" with four proposals on Saturday. The proposals relate to four highly controversial issues involving food safety, energy policy and future "referendum" arrangements. According to the voting result issued by the island's election commission, the four proposals failed to pass.

A low turnout of around 41 percent, as shown by the result of the election commission, was the leading cause of the major setback in the island-wide "referendum." Except for a noticeable drop in temperatures on the day as voters cast their ballots, several other factors could explain why the turnout was much lower than expected.

The first and perhaps most important factor is the DPP authorities' tactics to mobilize their voters by resorting to anti-China rhetoric. Senior officials, including Tsai Ing-wen, Lai Ching-te and Su Tseng-chang, were repeatedly claiming a "yes" vote on the activation of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and banning the import of ractopamine-containing pork would endanger the future of the island.

On the one hand, they argued once the proposals were passed, the ongoing Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between Taiwan and the US would be stalled again. Chances for Taiwan and the US to sign a so-called free trade agreement would be slim as well. The authorities also said they believed this result may also have adverse impact on the island's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in future.

On the other hand, DPP authorities said Taiwan would become more dependent on the mainland market in terms of export trade and face growing pressure from the mainland, which would inevitably jeopardize the island's economic and political outlook.

The tactics the DPP authorities utilized seemed to bear fruit. The four proposals were vetoed, with more than 4.2 million votes against versus 3.8 million votes in favor. In other words, the DPP successfully urged its base to cast their ballots while the KMT-led opposition failed to do so. The number of votes also indicates few median voters cast their ballots.

The US' role also discouraged voters' participation in this contentious "referendum." Kurt Tong, former US principal deputy assistant secretary for economic and business affairs, warned on Dec 16, two days from voting, that "Taiwan-US economic ties would be damaged," adding Taiwan's qualification for the CPTPP would also be undermined should the proposal of banning the import of US racto-laden pork be passed. Sandra Oudkirk, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, also publicly expressed concerns about the initiative to restrict US pork imports in late October.

Lastly, the overuse and misuse of "referendums" contributed to a growing number of voters' political apathy. The DPP authorities have resorted frequently to "referendums" to mobilize voters by utilizing the "independence" versus unification issue. The politicization of "referendums" only adds to voters' indifference to political issues.

The result of the "referendum" has had an impact on party politics in Taiwan, though. It was believed to be a critical index to test the approval rating of the DPP and KMT, who are heading to key mayoral elections late next year that will bear consequences on the region's regional leadership election in 2024. One may even argue this would, to some extent, influence cross-Straits ties and Taiwan's connections with the US in a few years.

That said, this "referendum" resolved almost nothing substantive for voters. Instead, it further tore society apart. The four proposals, particularly the two concerning racto-pork and the nuclear power plant, will continue to be the most highly controversial public issues on the island. If properly applied, a "referendum" can address the public's demands and concerns. But the DPP authorities' political operations lead nowhere.

Although the "referendum" came to an end, controversies and debates over the four proposals are likely to endure. In this case, Taiwan's "referendum" has failed its voters. What's worse, these proposals will reappear a few years later in a "referendum" which will fail its voters again – unless it is held without politicization.

The author is assistant professor at the School of International Studies at Nanjing University and a former Asia Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Harvard University. 

The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of China Daily and China Daily website.

If you have a specific expertise and would like to contribute to China Daily, please contact us at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn , and comment@chinadaily.com.cn