Print

Mail

wiki links

Seeing the true colors of politicians

The people of Taiwan have been casting votes for half a century. This has clearly taught us that voting in an indirect democracy has caused decisions on matters of public policy to be controlled by a small number of people, and that public opinion is not directly reflected in decisions on matters of major public policy. Since there is now a legal basis for it, the public can vote in a referendum on March 20, along with the presidential election. Being able to vote for a person and an issue in a single visit to the voting station saves both money and time. It offers indirect as well as direct democracy, and is a good opportunity for the people of Taiwan to express their opinion directly for the first time.

People of different opinions will naturally have different interpretations of every legal regulation. Article 100 in the old Criminal Code, for example, and the now abolished Statutes for the Punishment of Rebellion (懲治叛亂條例) stipulated that anyone attempting to overturn the government should be given the death sentence. From the perspective of protecting the interests of the dictator or the government, anyone simply criticizing them in a public gathering would be seen as attempting to overthrow the government and could thus be sentenced to death.

From the perspective of the people being ruled, however, it would merely be an attempt at political reform, initiating liberal democracy, and promoting democratic thinking in a gathering, and not even a criminal offense. Or, for example, although many people in their quest for unification are going to China to ask Beijing to take up arms against Taiwan, they are not in violation of Article 103 of the Criminal Law, which stipulates that collusion with a foreign nation with the intent of making that nation declare war on the Republic of China shall result in the death sentence or life in prison.

Because many people in Taiwan today, including politicians, law enforcers or ordinary citizens, feel that China is our motherland, and therefore not a foreign nation as stipulated by the law, collusion with China does not constitute collusion with a foreign nation. Thus, the foreign aggression offense stipulated in Article 103 does not apply.

Part of the text which forms the legal basis for the upcoming referendum limits such a poll to "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which may change its national sovereignty." Regardless of whether you support the opposition or the governing party, everyone will agree that this means that a referendum can be held if the nation is exposed to an external threat which may lead to a change in national sovereignty.

People with different points of view have different interpretations of the words "nation," "external" and "national sovereignty." The China-friendly faction believes that "nation" means China, that "external" means foreign forces such as the US or Japan, but not China's military or non-military power, and that "national sovereignty" of course means the sovereignty of China. The Taiwan independence faction believes that "nation" means Taiwan, that "external" means foreign military or military forces including China, the US or Japan, and that "national sovereignty" of course means the sovereignty of Taiwan.

China's 1982 Constitution clearly states that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the inviolable duty of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland."

Once the leaders of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) decide that the opportune moment has arrived to fire their missiles, Taiwan will suffer an instantaneous and life-threatening attack, and the risk of a change to its sovereignty.

Therefore, although Taiwan in fact is not exposed to an external attack at the moment, it is certainly exposed to an external threat, and this external threat poses the risk of changing the national sovereignty. However, the subjective understanding of people of different opinions can be diametrically opposed. In the eyes of the China-friendly faction, could it be an external threat if the PLA launches missiles against Taiwan? Not only would this not pose a threat to China's sovereignty, but it would mean the completion of "the great task of reunifying the motherland" that should be welcomed and encouraged by "all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan."

Based on the above understanding of sovereignty, the China-friendly faction must oppose the referendum in concrete action, forcefully claim that it violates the law, and try to prevent it taking place.

If not, would they not risk schizophrenia by cooperating with the government or the ruling party in organizing the referendum or by not opposing it?

Using direct democratic measures to allow the public to decide such major public issues relevant to national security is an exquisite step forward for Taiwan's democracy. But this simple and straightforward matter has created a great controversy where the key to support or opposition is whether you interpret and explain the Referendum Law from the perspective of the independence faction or the pro-China faction.

A lot of politicians are chameleonlike, and disguise their intentions in order to cheat voters. Examining their attitude toward the referendum allows us to understand their intentions.

Lin Shan-tien is a retired law professor.

Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 2553 times.