As expected, the Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Committee yesterday, for the third time, rejected the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s (TSU) proposal on holding a referendum on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). This is also the third time the absurd situation has arisen in Taiwan’s democracy where a handful of Referendum Review Committee members have struck down a collective wish petitioned by more than 300,000 people who want a public vote on the government’s trade pact with China.
While the Referendum Review Committee members may argue they were simply doing their job in accordance with the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which bestows upon them the authority to screen referendum proposals, the truth is that the Referendum Act has not been nicknamed “Birdcage Referendum Act” for no reason. It is a law that was flawed from the start when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-controlled legislature passed it eight years ago.
The Referendum Act is the only one of its kind in the world, a law according to which a ridiculous committee was designed as an anti-democratic organ under the executive branch to filter out the public’s voices and hijack their right to direct democracy.
Following the latest rejection from the committee, the TSU has said that it will immediately propose another referendum seeking to abolish the review committee.
The proposal will likely stir up another ruckus, given the party of concern will be the review committee itself. However, this is just the kind of provocation needed to highlight the ludicrousness of the “Birdcage Referendum Act.”
Aside from the absurd existence of the Referendum Review Committee, the current Referendum Act is also notorious for its excessively high thresholds, which make it almost impossible for any kind of initiative launched by the public to succeed.
Some may recall how Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) mentioned in October last year that the Executive Yuan would look into the possibility of lowering the threshold for referendums.
Months later, no further progress has been seen in that regard.
It hasn’t been a week since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in his New Year’s address, said that the various reforms this country have seen “have made the Republic of China a paragon of political and economic progress for developing nations around the world and have dispelled the myth that democracy is unsuitable for a Chinese society.”
The very existence of the Referendum Review Committee and the limit it imposes on the nation’s democracy shows the falseness of this statement.
If the Ma administration is serious about debunking the myth that “democracy is unsuitable for a Chinese society,” it should display its full resolve by initiating an amendment to the Referendum Act and providing an avenue by which the public can exercise direct democracy without all the hoops and hurdles. The current Referendum Act only constrains and disenfranchises people of their right to direct democracy as enshrined in the Constitution.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS