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.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS