Election Commission releases national referendum results: non‑nuclear home abolition passes, whipping bill rejected.

The Central Election Commission (CEC) held a committee meeting in Taipei to review several nationwide referendum proposals that have recently drawn significant public attention. Among them, the referendum proposal to abolish the "nuclear-free homeland" policy was successfully approved for progression. However, two other proposals—one regarding the introduction of flogging and another mandating that traffic fines be earmarked exclusively for improving road safety—were rejected after committee deliberation. This review result immediately sparked intense discussion in political and social circles, reigniting fierce debates and reflections on the boundaries of the referendum system and the division of power between representative democracy and direct democracy.

In response to the review outcome, Chuang Jui-hsiung, chief secretary of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus in the Legislative Yuan, addressed the media in an interview. He emphasized that if the competent authority were forced to accept all referendum proposals passed by a legislative majority or submitted by the public to the CEC without exception, completely losing its functions of gatekeeping and substantive review, the procedure could not be called a review at all, but would instead degenerate into a rubber-stamp endorsement. Chuang's remarks highlighted the statutory responsibility that independent agencies must shoulder when executing regulatory reviews, asserting that administrative authorities are legally obligated to exercise strict oversight to ensure that every proposal submitted to the entire citizenry for a vote complies with the Constitution and current legal norms.

Looking back at Taiwan's referendum history, since the Referendum Act underwent substantial amendments to lower the thresholds for proposal and signature collection, avenues for direct democracy have become more accessible, and the public's willingness to express opinions through referendums has significantly increased. However, as various issues continue to emerge, the scope of application for referendums and whether proposal contents conflict with current laws or fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution have gradually become persistent focal points of debate among legal scholars and politicians. The current Referendum Act stipulates that nationwide referendum proposals must be reviewed by the CEC, and if any non-compliance is found, they must be rejected or required to be corrected within a specified period according to law. This serves as an important defense line to ensure the democratic quality of referendums.

Among the two proposals rejected this time, the inclusion of flogging in the legal system involves a fundamental transformation of the penal system, touching upon Taiwan's criminal policy, international human rights covenants, and the values of the judicial system. Meanwhile, the proposal to earmark traffic fines exclusively for road safety improvements involves the professional domains of the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures and budget distribution. Although both issues have pockets of public support within society, from a legal perspective, whether they are suitable for creation or veto directly through referendums has always been controversial. Based on its authority, responsibilities, and relevant legal provisions, the CEC's decision to issue a veto demonstrates that government agencies must still adhere to the principle of the rule of law when handling sensitive social issues, rather than relying purely on populism or temporary public opinion trends as their sole guide.

From the operational logic of democratic politics, how to strike a balance between representative democracy and direct democracy remains an ongoing lesson that Taiwanese society must navigate. As the representative body of public opinion, the Legislative Yuan shoulders the vital responsibility of reviewing bills and overseeing the government, while referendums serve as an important mechanism to supplement representative politics. When the political sphere produces different interpretations and debates regarding the CEC's review results, it simultaneously reflects the maturity and pluralism of Taiwan's democratic mechanism. How related systems should be amended in the future to prevent referendums from degenerating into tools for political party competition while truly safeguarding the people's right to political participation will be a major test that Taiwanese society must face in the long term.