The result of the Scottish independence referendum, which has been a focus of attention around the world, is now known, with the pro-union side who voted “no” to independence emerging as the winners. Setting aside the result, there are many aspects of the process that could prove enlightening for Taiwanese.
Scotland has been part of the UK for 307 years. Confronted with the question of whether Scotland should leave the union and become independent, political leaders in London did not demand that the issue should be voted on by all British people. It was taken for granted that it was up to Scotland to decide for itself.
By the same measure, is it not equally obvious that Taiwan’s future should be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese? Who else could make the decision?
In the referendum, the minimum age for voting was 16, not 18 or 20. That is quite a contrast with Taiwan, where men aged 18 are obliged to perform military service, but do not have the right to vote. This is a clear discrepancy and imbalance between rights and duties.
The polls in Scotland were open all day on Thursday from 7am to 10pm so that people working in all professions could find time to vote, no matter whether they work in the daytime, evening or at night. This is different from Taiwan, where all elections are held between 8am and 4pm on Saturdays, thus depriving those who have to work normal hours on Saturday of the right to vote.
The Scottish independence referendum was not encumbered by restrictive thresholds, and the referendum question — “Should Scotland be an independent country?” — did not beat around the bush. The outcome of the vote — “yes” or “no” — was decided by a simple majority. Not so in Taiwan.
When will the nation break free from the bonds of its “birdcage” referendums, beset as they are with schemes and impediments?
In the run-up to the referendum, the pro-union and pro-independence sides in Scotland were free to pull out all the stops to get their respective messages across, with plenty of opinion polls available for reference.
No matter whether Scottish people voted “yes” or “no,” by their 84.6 percent turnout they announced to the world that they were determined to decide their own future.
Why would they allow anyone else to decide it for them?
When the Scottish Parliament announced that an independence referendum would be held, political leaders in London did not issue intimidating threats or call for repression by force. No nonsense about blood being thicker than water, or accusations of forgetting one’s roots were heard. Rather, their campaign involved appeals to sentiment along with discussion of the pros and cons.
The UK might not enjoy the stature it once did, but the example it has set by the conduct of this referendum shows that it is a civilized country indeed.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS