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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS