The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Monday last week held a public hearing about holding national referendums and the Nov. 24 nine-in-one elections on the same day.
Academics attending the hearing agreed that the Referendum Act (公民投票法) clearly stipulates that referendums should be held on the same day as national elections [if proposals are submitted within six months of national polls], and that the commission does not have the administrative discretion to separate the two voting processes.
The hearing was held because the number of referendums to be held in conjunction with the year-end elections has exploded. Including the local elections, some voters might have to cast 15 ballots, and the added election-related duties are overwhelming local governments.
Miaoli County Commissioner Hsu Yao-chang (徐耀昌) fired the first shot, expressing the hope that the referendums could be decoupled from the elections.
Every organization promoting a referendum wants its proposal to be held in conjunction with the local elections because they know that otherwise they would not stand a chance of reaching the threshold to make the result binding, even though it was drastically lowered in last year’s amendments: A quarter of all eligible voters need to vote in favor of a proposal for it to pass, given they outnumber those who vote against.
Looking at voter turnout at elections, the referendum threshold is very low, but if a referendum is not held in conjunction with an election, it nevertheless stands no chance of passing.
In all national referendums that have been held separately from elections so far, total voter turnout did not exceed one-quarter of eligible voters — not even in the 2005 referendum on the seventh constitutional amendment, even though both the Democratic Progressive Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) worked hard to mobilize voters.
It is odd that voter turnout can exceed 80 percent for elections, but will not even reach 20 percent for a referendum. Such a thing would never happen in a normal country.
In a democracy, people are the masters, and they have the power and the responsibility to decide national policy. As there are too many masters, the leader of the executive and the legislators are entrusted by them with the right to represent them by wielding the powers of governance and legislation.
However, if the people thus entrusted violate the wishes of the masters, or if the masters want to express their view on an issue, the masters’ wish should of course be followed. The referendum is there for the masters to express their opinion.
The masters of Taiwan are a bit odd, in that they are interested in choosing people to represent their wishes, but they are not interested in expressing their wishes themselves. What kind of master is that?
The leader of the executive and the legislators are servants of the public, but in Taiwan, public servants have become the masters. If the masters do not express their wishes, it is only natural that public servants will become the masters.
The reason is that Taiwanese have been ruled by a foreign power that has treated them as paid labor for too long. Now they can be the master of the nation, but they still have not had the time to get used to the new situation.
However, it is surprising that while many Taiwanese are naturally pro-independence and identify with Taiwan as an independent nation, they are still unable to fill the role as the nation’s masters and instead let the public servants fill that role.
Chen Mao-hsiung is chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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