In 30 days, voters are to go to the polls and exercise their democratic right to vote in the presidential and legislative elections.
While the nation is often lauded for its robust democracy — its democratization is a proud achievement — people often seem to equate being able to vote with being a part of a direct and representative democracy, without considering how their voices have in fact been muzzled as a result of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which is known as a “bird cage” act.
Earlier this month, Taiwan March concluded a one-year-and-a-half campaign to collect signatures from those who support lowering the thresholds stipulated in the Referendum Act for a petition to proceed. Although the group failed to achieve its goal by not being able to collect enough petitions to progress to the second stage of the petition process, its efforts and dedication in garnering about 220,000 signatures across the nation ought to be recognized and applauded.
It might be fair to say that Taiwan March’s efforts are the latest casualty in a long list of referendum-related efforts killed off by the act’s anachronistic regulations, which stipulate that a successful petition for a referendum requires 0.5 percent of eligible voters who took part in the previous presidential election to sign it — about 80,000 people. In addition, 5 percent of voters, or approximately 800,000 people, need to sign a petition before it can be screened by the Cabinet-level Referendum Review Committee.
Given the high thresholds, as well as the fact that the act saddles the public with the Referendum Review Committee, which filters out people’s voices, Taiwanese have been severely limited in their rights to exercise democracy.
The regulations mean members of the public have no recourse to national referendums to resolve disputes and so have to resort to street demonstrations, as in the case of last year’s protests against the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement that culminated in the Sunflower movement.
Equally outdated are some of the regulations regarding recalls of public servants, which stipulate that 2 percent of an official’s constituency must sign a petition for a recall in the first stage and 13 percent in the second stage, with the final vote requiring at least half of the electorate to cast ballots and at least half of those polled to agree to the recall.
As a result, the public has witnessed efforts launched to recall lawmakers who were deemed inept fail due to petition drives that failed to reach the thresholds to pass one of the stages.
In other words, although Article 17 of the Constitution clearly states that the public has the right to elect and recall officials, and initiate referendums, the experience of those exercising the rights to recall and initiate referendums have shown that the practice is far more difficult than it seems.
Taiwan is a democratic nation, yet the most crucial democratic element — public oversight and participation — has often been shut out due to the bird cage act.
The absurdity of people holding the right to vote, but not the right to recall, surely makes a mockery of the nation’s democracy.
As Jan. 16 approaches, hopefully legislative candidates, regarding voters as their touchia (頭家), or boss, would support amendments to the Referendum Act, Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) and other laws to enable Taiwanese to be the true masters of the nation and not have to watch as their democratic rights are hijacked.
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
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
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS