Confusion about referendums
In reference to Chen Ro-jinn's (
We have referendums on almost every ballot here in Ohio and in Cleveland. The referendums are called "Issues," and the issues that are decided by the voters are those that pertain to the voters' pocketbook.
Let's say the county in which I live needs new sewage plants. The county would put a property tax on the ballot and ask the voters to pass it to provide the new plants. If the referendum does not pass, then no new sewage plants would be built and water quality goes down. If the federal government has mandated higher water quality and the issue of more sewage plants does not pass, then the people are agreeing to pay the fines that might be incurred.
The Pinglin township referendum was not a valid issue because it asked the residents of a township to allocate the resources of the central government. A referendum or issue can only be put on the ballot by the people or their government to allocate or control land, or money, or time which they control, or will control should the ballot be passed.
If the ballot is about extending the right of a government which is already within its power were it not for the wording of the constitution, or of a local ordinance, then once the wording is changed through balloting, then the local, county, central government can move forward. The money to implement the action would then come legitimately from the governed's pocketbook. If it were, say, a country name change, then the people would vote to either pay the price or not of the desired action.
If it is, on the other hand, a "no nuclear" policy vote and the government does not step in with an alternative plan, then when the lights go out all over Taiwan the people get to see balloting responsibility in action.
This is responsibility up front and personal, but it is also something that happens in mature democracies every day. If the voters of Taiwan go the route of a referendum then they are saying, "I am an adult and I am ready to decide my destiny and pay the cost." This action would be saying something very meaningful.
Bode Bliss
Cleveland, Ohio
Identifying money laundering
Contrary to Lawrence Lee's (
The US model is that of cash transaction reporting (CTR) -- ie, making reports to a state authority of transactions over a certain value. The US has pushed this model onto many countries, including many in Southeast Asia, but at home, the model has become, to a degree, discredited as an effective tool for identifying money laundering in real time.
The costs and complexity of data analysis of cash-transaction reporting to a state department (this is not the same as internally within a financial services business) are such that it is not, generally, successful. Of the countries with CTR, only Australia has made it work -- and that is because of the special market conditions in Australia.
The suspicion-based report model is in fact the European model. It was developed in the EU Money Laundering Directive of 1991 and adopted as the ideal by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in its 40 Recommendations.
The US refused to acknowledge suspicion as an appropriate basis of reporting but, under the terms of its membership of the FATF, it had to do so and eventually adopted it in the mid 1990s. The US (via the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network which collects the reports) is presently involved in a review process of CTR to decide if it does in fact provide effective and cost-effective intelligence.
As the number of reporting institutions rises to embrace a wide range of non-banking businesses, the costs of CTR are burdensome on national economies. However, there are those that still support it and there is a hint in the June issue of the FATF's 40 Recommendations that CTR should be considered in all countries.
The "record keeping" model is not, as Lee says, a "British" model. It is also derived from the 1991 EU Directive.
Nigel Morris-Cotterill
Chairman, The Anti-Money Laundering Network
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers