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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS