As expected, the Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Committee yesterday, for the third time, rejected the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s (TSU) proposal on holding a referendum on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). This is also the third time the absurd situation has arisen in Taiwan’s democracy where a handful of Referendum Review Committee members have struck down a collective wish petitioned by more than 300,000 people who want a public vote on the government’s trade pact with China.
While the Referendum Review Committee members may argue they were simply doing their job in accordance with the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which bestows upon them the authority to screen referendum proposals, the truth is that the Referendum Act has not been nicknamed “Birdcage Referendum Act” for no reason. It is a law that was flawed from the start when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-controlled legislature passed it eight years ago.
The Referendum Act is the only one of its kind in the world, a law according to which a ridiculous committee was designed as an anti-democratic organ under the executive branch to filter out the public’s voices and hijack their right to direct democracy.
Following the latest rejection from the committee, the TSU has said that it will immediately propose another referendum seeking to abolish the review committee.
The proposal will likely stir up another ruckus, given the party of concern will be the review committee itself. However, this is just the kind of provocation needed to highlight the ludicrousness of the “Birdcage Referendum Act.”
Aside from the absurd existence of the Referendum Review Committee, the current Referendum Act is also notorious for its excessively high thresholds, which make it almost impossible for any kind of initiative launched by the public to succeed.
Some may recall how Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) mentioned in October last year that the Executive Yuan would look into the possibility of lowering the threshold for referendums.
Months later, no further progress has been seen in that regard.
It hasn’t been a week since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in his New Year’s address, said that the various reforms this country have seen “have made the Republic of China a paragon of political and economic progress for developing nations around the world and have dispelled the myth that democracy is unsuitable for a Chinese society.”
The very existence of the Referendum Review Committee and the limit it imposes on the nation’s democracy shows the falseness of this statement.
If the Ma administration is serious about debunking the myth that “democracy is unsuitable for a Chinese society,” it should display its full resolve by initiating an amendment to the Referendum Act and providing an avenue by which the public can exercise direct democracy without all the hoops and hurdles. The current Referendum Act only constrains and disenfranchises people of their right to direct democracy as enshrined in the Constitution.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS