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.
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
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
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
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS