KMT Demands Legal Basis as Election Commission Rejects Flogging, Traffic Fine Referendums

The Kuomintang (KMT) legislative caucus recently expressed its strongest protest and condemnation against the Central Election Commission (CEC) for vetoing two national referendum proposals concerning corporal punishment (flogging) and traffic fines. The KMT caucus believes that this action by the executive branch clearly restricts the rights of the people to exercise the initiatives and referendums through direct democracy. It demanded that the CEC provide a complete legal basis and detailed reasons for this review result to openly face public scrutiny and inspection by the Legislative Yuan. This controversy once again highlights the delicate balance in Taiwan between representative democracy and direct democracy, as well as the debate over the responsibilities and authority of the executive branch in vetting referendum proposals.

According to current regulations of the Referendum Act, national referendum proposals must first undergo a review process by the CEC before entering the signature collection stage. This process confirms whether the proposals comply with constitutionality and legality, and whether they pertain to the review of major policies or the creation of legislative principles. The legal considerations behind the CEC's veto of the flogging and traffic fine referendum proposals typically involve the punishment structure of the current criminal law system, the binding force of human rights covenants, and the professional jurisdiction of administrative fines and traffic supervision systems. However, the proposal initiators and supporting political parties argue that such major issues concerning social security and the public's wallets should naturally be decided by the entire citizenry directly expressing their opinions through referendums, allowing public will to determine the direction of national criminal and administrative penalties.

During press conferences or in statements issued at the Legislative Yuan, the KMT caucus pointed out that direct democracy is a supreme right endowed to the people by the Constitution, aimed at making up for the deficiencies of representative democracy. Caucus officials criticized the CEC for frequently resorting to vetoes or rejections in recent years against multiple referendum proposals that have garnered high social attention, which is tantamount to using executive power to build high walls that lock the voice of the people outside the system. They strongly questioned whether the CEC's review standards are swayed by specific political ideologies and demanded that the CEC chairperson and relevant officials face the public backlash head-on, clearly explaining which specific articles and paragraphs of existing laws each vetoed proposal allegedly violated.

From political and social perspectives, this incident reflects the strong anxiety within Taiwanese society regarding the tightening of criminal penalties and the standards of traffic enforcement. In recent years, due to frequent occurrences of drunk driving accidents and major heinous crimes, grassroots demands for imposing physical punishments such as flogging on specific criminals have never ceased. Furthermore, following the implementation of the new traffic violation penalty point and fine system, frustration among professional drivers and the general public over excessive fine amounts and rampant reporting systems has continued to accumulate. Citizens who support the referendums believe that direct voting can demonstrate public expectations for security and traffic order, and executive authorities should not easily deprive citizens of their political participation rights under the pretext of "failing to comply with legal regulations" or "not belonging to major policies."

However, legal circles and human rights organizations often hold a cautious attitude toward such referendum proposals. Experts and scholars point out that the design of the penal system involves human rights protection, the binding force of international conventions, and the overall consistency of the criminal law system. For example, the United Nations Convention against Torture places restrictions on inhuman punishments such as flogging. If flogging were directly promoted through a referendum, it could face tremendous unconstitutional risks under international law and Constitutional Court reviews. Similarly, the setting of traffic fines belongs to administrative discretion and professional technical regulations; leaving such matters to a majority-vote referendum would likely make it difficult to balance traffic safety theories with the principle of proportionality. To a certain extent, the CEC's veto decision also serves to uphold the basic framework of the current constitutional state and the principle of the separation of powers.

This confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties and the executive power triggered by the rejected referendums is unlikely to subside in the short term. As the KMT caucus demands that the CEC fully disclose its review reasons and submit to congressional oversight, future relevant committee meetings in the Legislative Yuan will inevitably feature fierce political battles over this issue. This is not only a legal debate regarding the scope of application of the Referendum Act, but also a critical test deeply examining how the executive and legislative branches should find a balance when direct public will collides with the existing legal system within Taiwan's democratic and constitutional framework.