The rejection by the Executive Yuan's Referendum Review Committee of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposal to hold a national referendum on whether to apply to join the UN under the name "Taiwan" was illegal and a violation of the public's rights.
Article 34 of the Referendum Law (
In other words, the committee can only deliberate on the superficial aspects of the proposal. But the rationale the committee gave for its decision concerned the referendum's substance, which is a clear transgression of its authority.
One of the committee's reasons for rejecting the proposal was: "UN states become members under their official national title. This proposal therefore implies changing the national title and is a topic for a constitutional amendment, which must be proposed following other procedures. This proposal does not appear in Article 2, Section 2 of the Referendum Law, which lists the topics suitable for a national referendum."
However, it is not unheard of for countries to join international organizations, including the UN, under unofficial names. Several of the UN's member states are registered under names other than their official titles. Switzerland and Macedonia are two examples.
In other words, a UN bid would not require changing the national title.
Another reason the committee gave for its rejection was: "The executive has already applied to the World Health Organization under the name `Taiwan.'"
First of all, the committee should be informed that the UN and the WHO are not one and the same.
Secondly, the current policy of applying to join the UN under the name "Taiwan" is the strategic political decision of the sitting president.
Successive presidents may or may not continue this campaign. The referendum could result in making a push for UN membership the duty of the head of state.
The third rationale the committee provided was that a referendum concerning "`major policy' ... cannot violate the Constitution or laws."
Our laws and our Constitution are all based on the principle of democracy and were established in order to guarantee citizens the direct exercise of civil rights.
Pre-emptively deciding on the topic denies the public those rights and violates the spirit of the Referendum Law.
Perhaps most importantly, the committee is not empowered to interpret whether or not a referendum violates the Constitution or laws.
Finally, the committee argued that the main body of the proposal and its justifications were at odds with each other, and cited the law, which says that the "overseeing organization" should reject a proposed referendum if "the content of the proposal is contradictory or obviously flawed to such an extent that the true intent of the proposal cannot be understood."
Once again, this is not an issue for the committee to consider. The law clearly states that the Central Election Commission is the "overseeing organization," not the committee.
Moreover, the commission has already certified that the proposal conformed to Article 1, Section 1 of the Referendum Law.
Lin Chia-lung is secretary-general of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Translated by Marc Langer
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