Over the past year, the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, an issue crucial to Taiwan’s future, has been the source of two referendum proposals, each with more than 100,000 petitions.
Following an initial review by the Central Election Commission, the proposals were handed to the Referendum Review Committee appointed by the current administration.
However, the committee responded to these petitions, endorsed by more than 200,000 citizens, by rejecting them in a statement of less than 350 words that was based on vague reasoning. There was no substantive explanation, let alone a clear discourse.
It is necessary to say that even if we ignore the issue of whether the committee exceeded its authority in rejecting the two referendum proposals, it needed to clearly state its reasons to both the petitioners and the public at large, as well as why it decided to accept or reject the points of view expressed at public hearings arranged by the government. This is the minimum requirement for an organization exercising state power in a democratic society under the rule of law.
Refusal to clearly explain its reasoning is tantamount to neglecting its duties and to say that the petitioners could file a lawsuit to the administrative court if they were unwilling to accept the outcome, as the Appeals and Petitions Committee said in a statement, is an excellent example of the arrogance of power.
It is also unacceptable that the current committee no longer allows the public to freely browse the records of its committee meetings as the previous committee did. Nor has it published the records of public hearings on the issue.
Making the discussion process transparent to the public would show respect for civil society and democratic values, but the committee has failed miserably in this respect.
Abusing one’s power in dark rooms and refusing public monitoring should not be allowed in any democracy under the rule of law.
To remedy the committee’s damage to the nation’s democracy, the Taipei Society issued an open letter on June 13 inviting committee members to discuss the issue in public, hoping to create a forum where the committee members would directly face the public so that the two could engage in open communication and dialogue.
Whether the committee members accept the invitation or not, we will in the future focus our efforts on consolidating the democratic value of referendums and reforming the referendum system.
Through public forums, we will increase public debate on these issues. We would like to open our doors and communicate with all sides and we sincerely welcome all members of the committee to join our dialogue with the public.
Huang Kuo-chang is chairman of the Taipei Society.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US