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.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS