The debate is on over proposed changes to the Referendum Act (公民投票法). There is no question that modifications are sorely needed after 10 questions were voted upon alongside the nine-in-one elections in November last year.
In addition to confusing wording and questionable topics, with five referendums revolving around the same issue, the election itself turned into a nightmare as people grew impatient over long lines to cast their ballots. It also cost an additional NT$1.3 billion (US$42.08 million) for the Central Election Commission (CEC) to organize so many referendums. Other issues included the use of dead people’s names on referendum petitions and parties using the questions just for vote-garnering purposes.
A Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) task force met last month and started working on the amendments, while the CEC rolled out its own proposals. One of the biggest items seems to be whether referendums should be held in conjunction with local elections. Some lawmakers have proposed allowing the commission to make the call according to the situation, while others are staunchly against separating them.
From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to keep everything on the same day and many people who would not have voted otherwise headed to the polls just to vote in the referendums. However, if the CEC ends up with 10 questions again, it might be wise to hold them on a separate day, because last year’s process was simply not manageable.
It is questionable whether the public actually needed more time to learn about the issues, as proposed by DPP Legislator Chen Ou-po (陳歐珀), as people had significant time to do their research. For example, the Alliance for the Happiness of Future Generations simply had more money and resources to run a stronger campaign than pro-LGBT+ groups; it was not a matter of time.
To avoid having to face this decision again, the CEC needs to have better mechanisms in place to ensure that there are not so many topics on the same issue, inappropriate issues or obsolete issues. For example, even though the government in October last year already scrapped the Shenao power plant project, it remained on the ballot. That human rights should be protected by absolute law and should not be voted on is also obvious, despite criticism from civic groups that “it could grant the commission more power to sanction referendum topics” (“Coalition concerned over referendum changes,” Jan. 18, page 2).
Language usage should also be regulated, as the wording of several questions was confusing and open-ended. People will always argue that this gives the commission too much power, but that is what it is there for. Democracy does not mean that people can say and do whatever they want — that is why there are laws. It is not that hard to understand.
As for the CEC’s proposal to limit the questions to 30 Chinese characters, that seems unnecessary.
Despite what the coalition of civil groups claimed last week, there is no way that these amendments would turn the act back into a “bird cage” law with tight restrictions. The system was tested last year and it did not work, so it is time to fine-tune things before the next round.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers