Four referendums will be held concurrently with the Jan. 12 legislative elections and the March 22 presidential election.
The referendum on the disposition of stolen party assets and the anti-corruption referendum are scheduled to be held in January.
In March, the referendums on both the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) UN proposals are scheduled to be held.
The pan-blue camp strongly opposed the passage of the Referendum Act (公投法), unwilling to endow the public with such rights. Due to public pressure, it reluctantly passed an amended, so-called "birdcage," Referendum Act in 2003.
Today, four years later, the pan-blue camp has proposed two referendums. Although the imperfect law strictly limits the public's rights to initiate referendums, such polls have been accepted and are becoming a standard component of Taiwan's democracy. This is a major progress in the development of the nation's democratic politics.
Still, the threshold for proposing, holding, or passing a referendum is too high, which makes it difficult for the public to use a referendum to pass a piece of legislation or amend the Constitution. More than 80,000 signatures are required to propose a referendum, 870,000 are required to hold it and over half the electorate must vote, with half of those voting supporting the referendum for it to be passed.
For example, the DPP's UN referendum will only be passed if 8 million voters participate in the referendum, with half of them supporting the referendum.
The high threshold stipulated in the Referendum Act is a violation of democratic principles as well as the Constitution, which states in Article 2: "The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens."
Thus, the power of the government, legislature and parties is entrusted to these institutions by the people of Taiwan. Ridiculously, the parties and legislature are trying to restrict the public's rights. The legislature is a representative mechanism, and legislators are performing their duties on behalf of voters. The public should be able to regulate the government, the legislature and political parties through the Constitution. So why do we have the opposite situation?
For example, if the legislature is lazy or paralyzed by political struggles, people should be able to bypass it and pass legislation directly through a referendum. The reason is quite simple: legislators are entrusted by the people to do their job. If they are incapable of doing a good job, the public should certainly be able to take the legislative power back.
If we ask lawmakers to amend the Constitution or even create a new one, and they refuse to do so or do it unsatisfactorily, we should be able to do it ourselves through a referendum. If the legislature's poor performance remains unchanged, we should be able to abolish it through direct popular power. All legislation, amendments and government budgets could be decided by referendums. With today's technology, installing a computerized voting system in each household is cheaper than having lawmakers who abuse their power.
The pan-blue camp should not treat this as a joke. The concept of a constitutional democracy is deeply rooted in the heart of the Taiwanese.
If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wants to win office, he should not talk about democracy while quietly working against the Referendum Act and depriving the public of our most basic right to political participation. In a word, Ma will lose the election if the "bird cage" is not removed.
Allen Houng is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition at National Yang-Ming University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would render the company’s plants inoperable, and that such a war would produce “no winners.” Not only would Taiwan’s economy be destroyed in a cross-strait conflict, but the impact “would go well beyond semiconductors, and would bring about the destruction of the world’s rules-based order and totally change the geopolitical landscape,” Liu said in the interview, according to the Central News Agency. Bloomberg columnist Hal Brands wrote on June 24: “A major war over Taiwan could create global economic
Amid a fervor in the global media, US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her congressional delegation made a high-profile visit to Taipei. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) awarded a state honor to her at the Presidential Office. Evidently, the occasion took on the aspect of an inter-state relationship between the US and the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, despite no mutual state recognition between the two. Beijing furiously condemned Pelosi’s visit in advance, with military drills in the waters surrounding coastal China to check the move. Pelosi is a well-known China hawk, and second in the line of succession to
Washington’s official position on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is that nothing has changed: The US government says it is maintaining its “one China” policy, that Pelosi is free to arrange international trips with congressional delegations independent of the government and that she is not the first US official to visit Taiwan even this year. Yet there is no denying that the fact and the optics of the second-in-line to the US presidency speaking with lawmakers at the Legislative Yuan about inter-parliamentary discussions and learning from each other as equals are hugely significant, as were
A stark contrast in narratives about China’s future is emerging inside and outside of China. This is partly a function of the dramatic constriction in the flow of people and ideas into and out of China, owing to China’s COVID-19 quarantine requirements. There also are fewer foreign journalists in China to help the outside world make sense of developments. Those foreign journalists and diplomats who are in China often are limited in where they can travel and who they can meet. There also is tighter technological control over information inside China than at any point since the dawn of the
RSS