After the Scottish independence referendum ends, a new UK will surely emerge. Rather than having London as the core, there is now a call for a fairer balance of power throughout the union.
The flag of Scotland will now stand for more than just the blue backdrop to the Union Jack, as the Scottish people’s decision to remain in the union, through self-determination, has instigated the need for renewed negotiations on the UK’s constitutional arrangements. This referendum has precipitated a new understanding of what plebiscitary democracy means. Britain, an island state, set the standard for both plebiscitary democracy and nationalism in the 21st century.
What can Taiwan learn from the referendum process?
While the pro-unification and pro-independence camps might be more concerned about the outcomes from the perspective of their respective positions, this is perhaps a good time to examine Taiwan’s “birdcage” Referendum Act (鳥籠公投). The nation’s referendum process is pseudo-democratic, falling short of the more civilized standards seen in the Scottish referendum.
When Holyrood pushed for a referendum, the British Parliament at the Palace of Westminster — an instigator of modern representative democracy — did not pass a law to restrict the content of the referendum due to its fear of direct democracy. Nor did the British prime minister establish a referendum review committee to check whether a proposal was appropriate. The Scottish people did not have to collect 1 million signatures first in order to have the right to hold a referendum. Nor was a threshold imposed, so the ruling Conservative Party did not have to call on its supporters to boycott the referendum in order to nullify the results by ensuring that the threshold was not reached. As a result, there has been little controversy over the outcome, which was immediately accepted by the unification and independence camps, allowing the UK to concentrate on the future.
Of particular interest to Taiwanese was the nature of the question asked in the Scottish referendum: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
There were only two simple choices — yes or no — while the referendum was implemented by a simple majority method. This is a civilized referendum system, a model that could point the way for furthering Taiwan’s democratization.
As a former member of the Cabinet’s referendum review committee, I used to support all the proposals during my term, irrespective of whether they were proposed by the blue or the green camp. Eventually, I chose to withdraw from the committee to show my protest against the unfair mechanism.
Today, many of my former colleagues serve as Examination Yuan and Control Yuan members or chair conglomerates. This highlights the barriers of interest to the civilization of Taiwan’s referendum system.
Thanks to the efforts of their ancestors, the Scottish people have been able to avoid the bloody wars that tore Ireland in two, and now they have had the chance to decide their own future through a referendum. The option was always there and has become an example for Taiwan’s democracy to follow.
Hsu Yung-ming is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Soochow University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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
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
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