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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS