On Thursday, the Legislative Yuan pulled off a trick worthy of a magician.
It is good that the legislature finally managed to pull a referendum law out of its hat, at long last giving the people of Taiwan a legal foundation for direct democracy. But it is sad that, apart from the Referendum Law (
According to the law, there are strict limits on the people's right to hold referendums. Each referendum must be reviewed and approved by the Cabinet's Referendum Review Committee (
It is not surprising, therefore, that the green camp calls the law "birdcage legislation."
Yet Taiwan's democracy has always developed in this way.
Since the early days of campaigning for political rights, and the birth of an opposition party, the public and the opposition party have joined hands on street corners and in elections to demand that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) abolish bans on new parties and newspapers, lift martial law, and allow public gatherings and demonstrations.
The KMT, meanwhile, has used issues like social order, independence and Chinese military posturing to blunt such demands. We have in the end had creeping democratic reform that have been delivered in instalments.
Although the KMT is no longer the ruling party, the pan-blue alliance composed of the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) holds the majority in the legislature, and therefore it was able to dominate the referendum legislation.
Although the blue camp opposes referendums, it dares not defy public opinion with an election looming. Therefore, the blue alliance wavered, giving up only the smallest possible amount of power, and trying to establish an advantage for its presidential campaign.
The Referendum Law is a minimalist law that merely institutionalizes the right to initiative and referendum.
It stipulates that the public only can exercise its right to initiative or referendum on proposals put forth by central or local legislative bodies. People have the right to vote in, but not initiate, a referendum on constitutional amendments. Referendums on public affairs must be sent to the Referendum Review Committee for review. Executive bodies have no power to call advisory referendums.
The Cabinet said the law is not acceptable, and is considering sending it back to the legislature for more consideration.
We too are disappointed by the Referendum Law, but it is the decision of the legislature. Until the numbers in the opposition-dominated legislature change, the results will remain the same, even if the Cabinet does send the law back. And in that case, the legislature might dismiss the Cabinet and cause political chaos.
This would damage the DPP's chances in the presidential election, and would also harm the Taiwanese people and threaten the nation's economic recovery. The pan-green camp should turn the people's dissatisfaction into demands for legislative reform, and use next year's presidential and legislative elections to change the legislature.
Gaining complete referendum rights will require a long-term effort. At least this unsatisfactory law will put at ease a bellicose China and a nervous US. It is time for the public to focus once again on economic issues.
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