DPP sold out supporters
The Referendum Law (公投法) passed by the Legislative Yuan on Nov. 27 was not only disastrous in terms of the democratic spirit, but also represented a sellout of the people by both the pan-green and pan-blue camps.
The blue camp's bill not only imposed a very high signature threshold for calling a referendum, but also excluded the right to change the national title and anthem. What kind of referendum is it that restricts people from voting on these fundamental matters?
Unfortunately, this version was passed. The pan-blue camp's position came as no surprise, but the DPP's conduct did.
Looking back, it is clear that the question of sovereignty was intentionally excluded from the Referendum Law by both camps in the legislature.
It was strategically correct for the pan-blue camp to pass the Referendum Law, since they hold a majority in the Legislature. But if the pan-green camp knew that the pan-blue camp's version would be passed should the vote proceed, why did the DPP legislators not withdraw from the chamber so that the vote would be canceled owing to lack of a quorum? This is a tactic that the DPP and the pan-blue camp have used many times, so why did the DPP not use it this time?
If they had done so, a postponement could have allowed more time to bargain with the pan-blue camp.
One might also ask why the DPP did not publicize key components of its preferred version of the bill to the public before the vote and whip up support, like it has done with other important legislation.
Finally, instead of voting against the bill, DPP legislators largely abstained, which effectively meant accepting the bill without publicly saying so.
The pan-blue camp was consistent in its position.
But with the pan-green camp there is a whiff of conspiracy. The DPP owes its supporters an explanation rather than just blaming the pan-blue camp for the result.
Who won the battle? Politicians from both sides. Who lost the battle? The people.
Joshua Tin
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry