On Saturday, 97 percent of the people in Chichi, Nantou County, who could be bothered to vote showed they didn't want a garbage incinerator built in their community. Surprised? We weren't either. After all, what Chichi residents were really being asked was "do you want an eyesore of a facility, that will create lots more traffic on your narrow roads and rain potentially harmful pollution on you and your neighbors, built in your community?"
In this light we were only surprised that 80 people voted yes -- perhaps they had been offered jobs at the incinerator. The Chichi vote was almost as mindless as the Pinglin on-ramp vote a couple of weeks ago -- "do you want an on-ramp to the freeway allowing you to go places faster?" That result wasn't surprising either.
A rash of these mini-referendums are being organized with no other purpose than to tell us something that everyone already knew. Somehow the fact that "the people have spoken" is supposed to carry weight. But should it? After all, what people are being asked to decide on is between what is plainly good for them and what is plainly not.
Of course Chichi residents don't want an incinerator in their backyard. Probably no community in Nantou County does. But if an incinerator has to be built in Nantou County it has to be built somewhere against some community's wishes. For each community in turn to tell us they don't want it is simply irrelevant.
The problem with these mini-referendums is that they threaten to bring the whole idea of referendums to decide highly controversial issues into disrepute. People will soon begin to see referendums both large and small as a money-wasting way of telling us what we already knew -- indeed Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Part of the problem lies in that phrase "to decide highly controversial issues." Actually strident opposition to something by those who have the most to lose does not make it controversial. The incinerator is not controversial in Chichi, there is in fact a remarkable unity of opinion on the issue. And that is of course because there is no down side presented to not having the incinerator, just as in Pinglin nobody expects anyone to support only being able to get to Taipei or Ilan along slow backroads rather than the new highway.
For any referendum to make sense people have to be given a choice of balanced outcomes -- "Do you want an on-ramp if you have to pay for it?" perhaps. Or "will you accept an incinerator if the county government raises spending on your community?"
The mess that the whole referendum issue is in is, of course, the result of the ineptness of the government's policy. For it was the central government, in fact President Chen Shui-bian (
If the Chichi and Pinglin votes seem stupid in conception remember where this conception came from.
It saddens us to have to say this because we have always been ardent supporters of the referendum idea. In fact the right of referendum is the only thing -- short of civil violence -- that stands between the people of Taiwan and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) plans for unification. All the more dangerous then, that the concept is being dragged down by these current stupidities.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under