The “September strife” shows how the longstanding lack of effective public oversight of politicians has allowed them to gallop out of control like unbridled horses. What may look like a random state of disorder is an inevitable result of the inherent and acquired deficiencies of the nation’s political system.
One major factor contributing to the muddled state of the political setup is a series of constitutional amendments that have given leaders unfettered power.
People were disappointed by a lot of things that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) did, and now they are in despair over President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) incompetence and propensity for political struggles.
The public has been duped by these two presidents over a period of more than a decade. Looking back, it is hard to imagine how Chen, the gallant human rights lawyer, could have ended up claiming that the money he wired into overseas accounts was really a national construction fund. Equally, who would have thought that the well-mannered, handsome, young Ma would later attempt to divert attention from his government’s poor performance by trying to axe Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), supposedly on moral principles, and get egg on his face over alleged illegal wiretapping?
Some people have suggested a return to the Cabinet system, under which the nation’s leaders would have matching powers and responsibilities. A Cabinet system might indeed bring some improvements compared with allowing the president to have power unmatched to his responsibilities and not subject to restraints. However, it would not necessarily be a solution to the current problems.
If Ma, instead of being president, were a prime minister elected by the majority party and his status as party chairman still let him use party discipline to control Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, would that change his habit of acting contrary to public opinion?
Having been duped for more than a decade, Taiwanese should start to face reality. What can be done when representative democracy fails, when the government works hand-in-hand with corporations and when those in power do things that fly in the face of public opinion? Ordinary people must be willing to stand up in the hour of need. Direct democracy can be used to launch recall campaigns against unworthy elected officials. That would make them act more cautiously and pay attention. It is the only way to sort out the political mess.
When the Referendum Act (公投法) was being drawn up, some legislators were worried that it would be a Pandora’s box, so they built a sturdy “birdcage” around it to keep it firmly closed. However, instead of keeping demons from escaping, the “birdcage” has locked up Taiwan’s imagination. As a result, when issues such as nuclear power, repercussions of the cross-strait service trade agreement and local governments’ arbitrary demolition of people’s homes are ignored, the only recourse is to take to the streets and shout slogans, even though those in power turn a deaf ear.
If Taiwanese had the right to referendums, marching around in the blazing sun and driving rain would not be necessary. People would not feel compelled to kill themselves in protest. The time spent on street protests could be better spent on pursuing dreams or spending time with families.
If Switzerland can do it, Taiwan can do it too.
Switzerland is comparable to Taiwan in terms of area, topography and natural resources. It has a long-established system of using referendums to decide important issues. The system was not hard to set up and it operates with no problem at all. Taiwan is a civilized place, so there is no reason why what has worked for Switzerland should not work here.
If people think the kind of democracy that prevails in Switzerland is an attractive idea, then it is time to think about adopting Swiss-style direct democracy.
The protests launched by the Citizen 1985 alliance on Saturday to coincide with Double Ten National Day are worthy of applause. The “birdcage” referendum system should be dismantled so that Swiss-style direct democracy can spread its wings.
Juang Wei-torng is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Economics.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under