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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers