Sat, Oct 01, 2011 page3

• Referendum Act not fit for purpose, academics say

  • By Lin Shu-hui / Staff Reporter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  A National Human Rights preliminary report scheduled to be released by the Presidential Office later this month should include a review of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which deprives people of their rights, a number of academics said yesterday.

  The act, enacted in 2003, has been dubbed “birdcage” legislation because of the unreasonably high threshold needed to launch a referendum drive.

  The act stipulates that a referendum proposal, after completing a first stage whereby signatures from 0.5 percent of the number of eligible voters in the previous presidential election have been collected, must obtain approval from the Referendum Review Committee before it can proceed to the next stage, which involves collecting signatures from 5 percent of voters.

  

  People Are The Masters volunteer action network members Huang Kuo-chang, left, Liao Fu-te, second left, Lai Chung-chiang, second right, and Kao Yung-cheng call for the Referendum Act to be amended during a press conference in Taipei yesterday.

  Photo: Liao Chen-huei, Taipei Times

  It must then pass a second review before making it to polling stations.

  Academia Sinica deputy researcher Liao Fu-te (廖福特) told a press conference that the act failed to deliver on its purpose, handing power to the people, and it did not meet the standards defined in the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.

  The first article of both of the UN covenants details the right of self-determination and “by virtue of that right, the people freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Liao said.

  He said since the implementation of the act, not one referendum has been held because of the high threshold it stipulates.

  It is the equivalent of not having the right of referendum, and the Presidential Office’s planned National Human Rights report should address this issue, Liao said.

  Liao said the Council of the Europe’s Code of Good Practice on Referendums states plainly that “based on its experience in the area of referendums, the Venice Commission has decided to recommend that no provision be made for rules on quorums, [including] ... turn-out quorums (minimum percentages) mean that it is in the interests of a proposal’s opponents to abstain rather than to vote against, [or] approval quorums (acceptance by a minimum percentage of registered voters) as it may also be inconclusive.”

  The threshold regulation of Taiwan’s act is in direct violation of its purpose — trying to encourage citizens to participate in referendums, Liao said.

  Another Academia Sinica deputy researcher, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), said that although the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) signed both the UN covenants into law and passed legislation in accordance with them, limitations in the act are hurting efforts to hold referendums in Taiwan.

  Translated by Jake Chung, staff writer
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taipei tells Denmark to fix ‘China’ tag

  • 2

    Seven NT$10 million receipt prizes unclaimed

  • 3

    Taiwan aiming to be major UAV player

  • 4

    Taiwanese officials shown 1st F-16V jet due this year

  • 5

    September ‘possible’ for first F-16V delivery: Koo