Sat, Jan 31, 2004 page8

• Editorial: Referendum detractors must explain

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  To counteract the Democratic Progressive Party's accusations that the opposition's threatened boycott of the March 20 referendum is really an objection to Taiwan's democratic consolidation, the pan-blue camp has changed its position from "not opposing the referendum" to "questioning the legality and necessity of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) planned referendum."

  Led by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is echoed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), the pan-blue camp has stirred up its campaign by attacking Chen on legal issues as well as by talking about "necessary conditions" to hold a defensive referendum. Regrettably, most of the pan-blue camp's arguments fail to conform with political reality.

  Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公民投票法) stipulates that "the president is entitled to initiate a referendum on national security issues whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sovereignty." Legally speaking, an "external threat" and the possibility that "national sovereignty" might be changed constitute two "necessary conditions" for the president to call for a referendum.

  In this regard, whether the handling of the referendum meets the criteria set by the article is up to the president's political judgment. The voters will have the final say about it.

  The opposition's claim that Chen has violated the Referendum Law is by no means logical. Moreover, to portray Chen's move as an attempt to abuse Article 17 is also without legitimate grounds. Remember, it was the opposition, which dominates the Legislative Yuan, that passed the Law.

  The Chen administration has repeatedly reminded Taiwanese people and the international community of the inherent danger of China's missile deployment and military expansion. This is a fact not only faced by Taiwan but also widely recognized by others, including the US.

  The main concern from the pan-blue camp centers on the extent to which the threat has become "a clear and present danger" that meets the criteria for holding a defensive referendum. While Ma and his colleagues argue that the country has been under military threat from China for half a century but has never been in a state of emergency, they overlook that fact that there was no legal basis for holding a referendum in the past.

  Taiwan simply cannot wait until external threats become imminent. Therefore, the pan-blue camp's ignorance of China's military threat displays a huge lack of responsibility.

  When it comes to the second condition -- whether national sovereignty is under threat -- the pan-blue camp should take more responsibility for failing to deter China's international saber-rattling on Taiwan's statehood.

  The KMT's long-term adherence to its "one China" fantasy has resulted in the Republic of China's (ROC) exclusion from the UN and other key international organizations. When the world community confused the ROC with the People's Republic of China and gradually started to treat Taiwan as part of China, shouldn't we have been worried about Taiwan's sovereignty being sabotaged?

  In the face of Taiwanese leaders' push for a democratic referendum, Beijing has incorporated a new strategy of uniting its allies to isolate the Chen administration. What are they aiming for?

  Can't anyone from the pan-blue camp see the scheme in the Chinese leaders' minds? Beijing's strategy is to create an international image that Taiwan' affairs are China's internal affairs.

  To show a firm determination to safeguard Taiwan's national interests, Lien and the pan-blue camp owe the voters a fair explanation of why they intend to block the March referendum.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Taiwan wants bilingual, AI-ready graduates — but tests for yesteryear