As lawmakers and government officials yesterday squared off at a meeting of the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee over proposed amendments to the “birdcage” Referendum Act (公民投票法), many Taiwanese are reminded again of the absurdity of their democratic rights being hijacked by the establishment of the Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Committee.
While it is understandable that drafts such as lowering the threshold for the proposal, petition and passing of referendums warrant thorough debate and deliberation on the legislative floor, it is beyond comprehension that government officials still defend the existence of this committee.
The act stipulates that a referendum proposal — after completing the first stage of collecting signatures from 0.5 percent of eligible voters in the previous presidential election — must obtain approval from the committee before it can proceed to the next petition stage; to then again pass a second review before making it to the polling stations.
Considering that a number of referendums that have been proposed — in which many people invested their time and labor collecting tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of signatures — were turned down in their early stages by a handful of politicians, the committee only exists to screen people’s voices by disenfranchising their direct participation in public decisionmaking.
Despite this obvious absurdity, Executive Yuan Secretary-General Chien Tai-lang (簡太郎) was adamant yesterday that the Executive Yuan’s 21-member committee must not be abolished, stressing that it is made up of professionals who are tasked to help with the handling of referendum proposals.
However, one has to wonder what constitutes Chien’s definition of “professional” when there have been reports of committee members’ lack of attentiveness and diligence. For instance, committee meetings scheduled to review referendum proposals were called off because of the low number of members present; the committee ended up sending out e-mails instead to solicit opinions on whether public hearings should be held for the proposed referendum.
It was also revealed that the committee members are eligible for NT$4,000 to NT$8,000 for part-time work, even if the committee is not in session — a practice that is at odds with the other committees of the Executive Yuan.
So, what exactly is the purpose of the committee, when its members obviously cannot take their work seriously enough to recognize the importance of referendum proposals while wasting taxpayers’ money by failing to act in the interests of the public?
Chien also defended the committee’s existence by citing the Council of Grand Justices’ Interpretation No. 645, making it clear that the committee is not unconstitutional. However, he has distorted the grand justices’ interpretation, which ruled that the composition of the committee being proportional to political party representation in the legislature is unconstitutional, but not that the committee, per se, is constitutional.
In countries such as Switzerland, when they hold a referendum, they do so without having proposals filtered by such a committee. Why then do Taiwanese need a Referendum Review Committee to muzzle them and stand in the way of direct democracy?
The existence of the committee serves only to make a mockery of the nation’s democracy.
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly
On Thursday last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a barnstorming speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future.” The speech set out in no uncertain terms the insoluble ideological divide between a totalitarian, communist China and the democratic, free-market values of the US. It was also a full-throated call to arms for all nations of the free world to rally behind the US and defeat China. Pompeo elaborated on a clear distinction between China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in an attempt to recalibrate the