In a historically fascinating move, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week announced the launch of a citizens’ initiative to reform the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which had just been amended last year.
While earlier being the main force behind the so-called “birdcage“ referendum act introduced in 2003, which basically made it impossible to get valid referendum results, the KMT is now accusing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of turning it into an “iron cage” law with last year’s changes.
To solve the problem, the KMT wants to go back to the old order of combining elections and voting on issues on the same day. This would “return power to the people,” KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) said.
The KMT is right in that the most recent reform of the act has been misguided, as decoupling referendums and elections without abolishing or lowering considerably the approval quorum of 25 percent of the electorate does not empower citizens after all, because it invites boycotts, which the KMT has often used in the past.
However, simply returning to the old arrangement would not empower people, but the big political parties, and keep issue-voting in the shadows of a traditionally confrontational and partisan electoral moment. Additionally, Taiwan has differentiated minimum voting age (20 for elections and 18 for referendums), which complicate the setup of an election — and led to highly criticized delays in the November 2018 local elections.
Taiwan has come further than most countries in Asia (and the world) when it comes to engaging citizens and having people in genuine charge of politics. It makes sense to keep elections on candidates and voting on issues separated, but at the same time the undemocratic — and by international expertise strongly discouraged — special approval quorum needs to be abolished or lowered to a minimum (eg, 25 percent turnout quorum or 10 percent approval quorum).
There is more that needs to be done: The law mandates a system of electronic signature gathering, but the authorities have made little effort to introduce it. Again here, the two big parties have a natural advantage.
Finally, the Referendum Act needs to be updated and can be made even more accessible. What Taiwan lacks when it comes to modern participatory and direct democracy are not the nice principles of it, or even the main legislative procedures at hand, but a strong dose of less dramatic and confrontational practices.
As the KMT now wants to launch an initiative to change the Referendum Act, the truly democratic forces should react on their own initiative with some of the elements above. Taiwan’s vibrant democracy and the brave Taiwanese deserve a proper framework for making their voices heard — and should have one main voting day a year: 2021 — referendum voting; 2022 — local elections; 2023 — referendum voting; 2024 — national elections; 2025 — referendum voting.
Bruno Kaufmann is president of Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe in Stockholm, Sweden.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath