The result of the Scottish independence referendum, which has been a focus of attention around the world, is now known, with the pro-union side who voted “no” to independence emerging as the winners. Setting aside the result, there are many aspects of the process that could prove enlightening for Taiwanese.
Scotland has been part of the UK for 307 years. Confronted with the question of whether Scotland should leave the union and become independent, political leaders in London did not demand that the issue should be voted on by all British people. It was taken for granted that it was up to Scotland to decide for itself.
By the same measure, is it not equally obvious that Taiwan’s future should be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese? Who else could make the decision?
In the referendum, the minimum age for voting was 16, not 18 or 20. That is quite a contrast with Taiwan, where men aged 18 are obliged to perform military service, but do not have the right to vote. This is a clear discrepancy and imbalance between rights and duties.
The polls in Scotland were open all day on Thursday from 7am to 10pm so that people working in all professions could find time to vote, no matter whether they work in the daytime, evening or at night. This is different from Taiwan, where all elections are held between 8am and 4pm on Saturdays, thus depriving those who have to work normal hours on Saturday of the right to vote.
The Scottish independence referendum was not encumbered by restrictive thresholds, and the referendum question — “Should Scotland be an independent country?” — did not beat around the bush. The outcome of the vote — “yes” or “no” — was decided by a simple majority. Not so in Taiwan.
When will the nation break free from the bonds of its “birdcage” referendums, beset as they are with schemes and impediments?
In the run-up to the referendum, the pro-union and pro-independence sides in Scotland were free to pull out all the stops to get their respective messages across, with plenty of opinion polls available for reference.
No matter whether Scottish people voted “yes” or “no,” by their 84.6 percent turnout they announced to the world that they were determined to decide their own future.
Why would they allow anyone else to decide it for them?
When the Scottish Parliament announced that an independence referendum would be held, political leaders in London did not issue intimidating threats or call for repression by force. No nonsense about blood being thicker than water, or accusations of forgetting one’s roots were heard. Rather, their campaign involved appeals to sentiment along with discussion of the pros and cons.
The UK might not enjoy the stature it once did, but the example it has set by the conduct of this referendum shows that it is a civilized country indeed.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry