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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS