The “birdcage” is open; it is now time for other impediments to a better-functioning democracy to be removed as well.
The revised Referendum Act (公民投票法) took effect yesterday, after amendments passed by the legislature last month were promulgated on Wednesday by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).
It was Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) predecessors who first proposed a referendum law, a notion that was fiercely opposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its offshoots, the New Party and the People First Party (PFP), on constitutional and national security grounds.
DPP lawmakers submitted a referendum bill in 2003 in the wake of a growing groundswell of calls for a national vote on the use of nuclear power and construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
However, their proposal also included suggested plebiscite topics on the nation’s borders, flag, name and defense issues, which raised hackles in Taiwan and abroad.
KMT and PFP legislators retaliated by introducing a bill that set impossibly high turnout thresholds for a referendum to be valid, and given the KMT’s legislative majority, its restrictive version passed, earning the new law its “birdcage” nickname.
The success of the pan-blue camp’s determination to prevent wider democracy can be measured by the failure of the six national referendums that have been held, as none met the required voter turnout level.
Now that Taiwan has a more realistic referendum act, voters have a chance to exercise a greater say on many crucial issues, be it the use of nuclear power, the direction of government policies and programs, the restructuring of the government by abolishing the moribund Control Yuan, or even far more sensitive — read explosive — topics that touch on the Constitution, national identity and national symbols.
However, patience and caution are advised.
Well-thought-out and carefully drafted referendum questions are key, as anyone who has watched the past year-and-a-half’s furor, debate and confusion caused by the amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) that were passed in December 2016 — or a number of other bills — could attest.
Speaking of reform, the legislature and poorly drafted bills, it is time for this newspaper’s by now annual plea to address a long-standing public complaint: the excessive number of extraordinary sessions the nation’s lawmakers seem to need to do their jobs.
Now that the referendum thresholds have been lowered, it is worth asking why the Constitution cannot be amended to extend the length of the Legislative Yuan’s mandated two-per-year regular sessions? Taking the idea a step further: Why not ban unscheduled sessions entirely, except in case of a national emergency, which should preclude dragging out passage of the general government budget until a special session is called.
Even one extraordinary session per year should be anathema, yet the KMT and DPP have become addicted to holding at least one, if not two, after each regular legislative session.
This addiction allows lawmakers to waste even more time before and after each regular session arguing over whether one or more extraordinary sessions will be necessary — the answer always seems to be yes — how long each will last and its agenda.
Perhaps if lawmakers were forced to take long breaks away from their offices and committee rooms, they could return refreshed and ready to work.
Or perhaps not. However, such breaks would at least give the public a time-out from the interminable color-coded political squabbling and grandstanding, with the attendant media attention and talk show blather, which passes for informed debate in Taiwan.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, entered service this week after a commissioning ceremony in China’s Hainan Province on Wednesday last week. Chinese state media reported that the Fujian would be deployed to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the western Pacific. It seemed that the Taiwan Strait being one of its priorities meant greater military pressure on Taiwan, but it would actually put the Fujian at greater risk of being compromised. If the carrier were to leave its home port of Sanya and sail to the East China Sea or the Yellow Sea, it would have to transit the
RSS