In a democracy, public servants — by definition — are employees hired by taxpayers to serve public interests. They exist as agents to attend to the collective concerns of the people, not the other way around, such as acting in their own interests, hijacking the people’s rights and deciding for the people what they can ask the civil service to do and not to do.
Such absurdity appears to be brewing in Taiwan as an appeal petitioned by about 200,000 people is now on the brink of being rejected by a handful of public servants who are supposed to serve them, thanks to the birdcage Referendum Act (公民投票法), which is known for its unreasonably high threshold needed to launch a referendum drive and the establishment of a so-called Referendum Review Committee that screens people’s voices.
The Referendum Act stipulates that a referendum proposal, after completing the first stage of collecting signatures from 0.5 percent of eligible voters in the last presidential election, must obtain approval from the Referendum Review Committee before it can proceed to the next stage of collecting signatures from 5 percent of that same number. It must then pass a second review before making it to the polling stations.
In accordance with the law, the Executive Yuan’s 21-member Referendum Review Committee is slated to meet tomorrow and decide whether a proposed question put forward by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) on the government’s planned trade pact with China conforms to the requirements for a valid referendum proposal.
Citing anonymous sources, local media yesterday reported that the committee, in line with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) stance on the planned cross-strait trade pact, is likely to reject the TSU’s proposed referendum, which asks the question: “Do you agree that the government should sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China?”
Leading up to tomorrow’s committee meeting, there has also been a media report quoting anonymous sources from the Ma administration and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as saying that China has privately expressed its views to Taiwan on the proposed ECFA referendum, saying that holding such a public vote would have “impacts on cross-strait developments.”
While it comes as no surprise that authoritarian China dislikes the people having their voices heard, it would be an utter sham on the part of the Ma administration if it were to toe Beijing’s line and reject the TSU’s proposed referendum. It would be equally despicable if the Referendum Review Committee likewise toes Ma’s political line and chooses to rebuff the voices of the 200,000 people its members serve.
Ma himself has praised Taiwan’s democracy many times; what better way to demonstrate Taiwan’s democracy than having its citizens take part in developing national policy through a direct vote? After all, what is the Ma administration afraid of? If an ECFA with Beijing were indeed as beneficial as Ma and his government officials say, wouldn’t a referendum on the planned pact serve as a great opportunity for Ma to prove himself correct and his critics wrong?
All eyes are now on the Referendum Review Committee and it is to be hoped that the committee will act in the interests of the public rather than working to muzzle people’s voices and leave a stain on the nation’s record in consolidating its democracy.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS