The latest controversy surrounding the Referendum Review Committee highlights the need to do away with the committee, whose existence has long been unnecessary.
A meeting had been scheduled for Monday to review the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s (TSU) proposal for a referendum on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). However, the low number of committee members present at the meeting caused it to be called off, and instead an e-mail was sent to solicit opinions from the members about logistical issues and whether public hearings should be held on the TSU’s proposal.
The unprofessional and careless attitude displayed by the committee and its members is beyond belief.
Thanks to the birdcage Referendum Act (公民投票法), Taiwanese have been saddled with a Referendum Review Committee that filters out people’s voices.
Despite their grievances, law-abiding individuals and groups seeking to launch referendums work to comply with the law by submitting their petitions for approval by the committee. In the same manner, the committee members should take it upon themselves to uphold the responsibility the law has bestowed upon them and deal with referendum proposals with diligence and attentiveness.
Instead, only five of the committee’s 21 members showed up at the meeting on Monday. The committee’s executive secretary, Teng Tien-yu (鄧天祐), said the 16 absent members were preoccupied with personal engagements, such as trips abroad, classroom engagements, court appearances and interviews.
If the committee members cannot take their work seriously and cannot recognize the importance of referendum proposals — which people invest their time and sweat collecting signatures for — they need to be removed from their posts.
Better yet, abolish the committee altogether.
The committee early last month muzzled the voices of more than 200,000 people by killing their petition for a referendum on the government’s trade pact with China. This decision hijacked our democratic rights and marred the nation’s efforts at consolidating its democracy.
Then there is the issue of using e-mail to discuss whether a hearing on the TSU’s latest referendum proposal should be held. Some — applying a “time is money” logic — may argue that use of e-mail is an efficient way to solicit people’s opinions. However, such an argument fails to recognize the high-profile nature of the matter the committee is dealing with. This case necessitates the committee’s full attention, not the lax approach of an e-mail. The committee should know better than to treat a politically sensitive matter so casually.
It is bad enough that Taiwanese have to suffer an agency such as the Referendum Review Committee standing in the way of direct democracy, but it is even more disheartening to know the committee and its members are treating the people’s voices in such a perfunctory manner.
All in all, the latest incident clearly suggests the agency needs to go. Aside from ridding Taiwan of an agency that exists only to stand in the way of democracy, the taxpayer money being used to pay committee members could finally be spent to serve the public interest.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS