The debate over the referendum law reached another climax with the approval of the DPP and TSU's version of the draft law on Wednesday. Despite conveying the impression of an unprecedented consensus on the public's right to a referendum, the pan greens and pan blues are still poles apart in terms of what that right entails.
A comparison of the two versions of the draft submitted by the DPP-TSU camp and the KMT-PFP camp reveals that the pan blues are much more restrictive in several critical aspects. For one, the draft severely limits the permissible subject matters of the referendums, excluding the changing of the national flag and country name, as well as military, social welfare and national security issues. Under these circumstances, no wonder some people have jokingly asked, "What is left?"
Another major difference is the minimum number of signatures required to petition for the calling of a national referendum. The minimum ask by the DPP and TSU is 2 percent of all eligible voters, while the KMT and PFP ask for a much higher figure -- 5 percent. A benefit of this higher percentage is that frivolous issues not of national concern can be screened out in the process, so as to avoid wasting time and money. It should not be forgotten that the people of Taiwan have a feverish enthusiasm for political participation, making political mobilization in this small nation easier to begin with, and that a large number of the population hold a particular political party affiliation or loyalty. Put together, these make obtaining the minimum number of signatures less difficult than elsewhere in the world.
An even more noteworthy difference in the two drafts of the law is this -- the DPP-TSU version accords the Executive Yuan the right to initiate referendums, while the KMT-PFP version does not. According to Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), putting this sort of responsibility in the hands of the Cabinet disrupts the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch.
The problem is, in most other countries where people's referendum rights are acknowledged, both the people and the government have initiative rights. Now if the DPP-TSU version gave the government exclusive initiative rights, then Ma's accusation that the public's rights are being encroached would make sense. However, the pan greens are actually seeking an additional channel through which referendums may be called or initiated.
Reportedly, Ma claims that the DPP-TSU draft would allow the Executive Yuan to call for a referendum with the approval of a majority of the votes caste in the Legislative Yuan, while currently the Constitution mandates that the Legislative Yuan may override a veto by the Cabinet if it is backed by a majority of lawmakers.
Ma's fear seems to be that the lower threshold for approval by the Legislative Yuan for holding a referendum could cause the Executive Yuan to resort to referendums each time it seeks to veto a law passed by the legislature. This scenario is, of course, a grave concern for the pan blues, which continue to enjoy a legislative majority and have consistently used that majority to hobble the government's policy implementation.
Executive Yuan Spokesperson Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) has denied that a lower threshold is provided for in the draft version approved by the Executive Yuan. The two camps will have to offer additional clarifications on this point before meaningful debate can continue.
Finally, it should not be forgotten there is no higher threshold than the approval by a majority of voters once an issue is put to vote through a referendum. Moreover, unless it has no regard for its own political accountability and credibility, the Executive Yuan would not randomly call referendums without due cause. Ma should have no cause for concern.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS