After the Scottish independence referendum ends, a new UK will surely emerge. Rather than having London as the core, there is now a call for a fairer balance of power throughout the union.
The flag of Scotland will now stand for more than just the blue backdrop to the Union Jack, as the Scottish people’s decision to remain in the union, through self-determination, has instigated the need for renewed negotiations on the UK’s constitutional arrangements. This referendum has precipitated a new understanding of what plebiscitary democracy means. Britain, an island state, set the standard for both plebiscitary democracy and nationalism in the 21st century.
What can Taiwan learn from the referendum process?
While the pro-unification and pro-independence camps might be more concerned about the outcomes from the perspective of their respective positions, this is perhaps a good time to examine Taiwan’s “birdcage” Referendum Act (鳥籠公投). The nation’s referendum process is pseudo-democratic, falling short of the more civilized standards seen in the Scottish referendum.
When Holyrood pushed for a referendum, the British Parliament at the Palace of Westminster — an instigator of modern representative democracy — did not pass a law to restrict the content of the referendum due to its fear of direct democracy. Nor did the British prime minister establish a referendum review committee to check whether a proposal was appropriate. The Scottish people did not have to collect 1 million signatures first in order to have the right to hold a referendum. Nor was a threshold imposed, so the ruling Conservative Party did not have to call on its supporters to boycott the referendum in order to nullify the results by ensuring that the threshold was not reached. As a result, there has been little controversy over the outcome, which was immediately accepted by the unification and independence camps, allowing the UK to concentrate on the future.
Of particular interest to Taiwanese was the nature of the question asked in the Scottish referendum: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
There were only two simple choices — yes or no — while the referendum was implemented by a simple majority method. This is a civilized referendum system, a model that could point the way for furthering Taiwan’s democratization.
As a former member of the Cabinet’s referendum review committee, I used to support all the proposals during my term, irrespective of whether they were proposed by the blue or the green camp. Eventually, I chose to withdraw from the committee to show my protest against the unfair mechanism.
Today, many of my former colleagues serve as Examination Yuan and Control Yuan members or chair conglomerates. This highlights the barriers of interest to the civilization of Taiwan’s referendum system.
Thanks to the efforts of their ancestors, the Scottish people have been able to avoid the bloody wars that tore Ireland in two, and now they have had the chance to decide their own future through a referendum. The option was always there and has become an example for Taiwan’s democracy to follow.
Hsu Yung-ming is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Soochow University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)