The opposition parties are launching a petition to call for a referendum on the government’s planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. I sympathize deeply with Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) description of this campaign as “crucial to Taiwan’s future” in a recent open letter. Yet I think there is still room for discussion on how the petition should be presented.
The suggested main text for the referendum reads: “Do you agree that the government should put an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) signed by Taiwan and China to a referendum for the Taiwanese people to decide?” In other words, it is a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.
As indicated on the DPP’s Web site and in Tsai’s open letter, the referendum campaign is not an attempt to cause trouble, but is in fact aimed at killing two birds with one stone.
TWO BIRDS
On the one hand, the petition is part of an effort to address the fact that such an important policy as the signing of an ECFA with China must gain public support before it is carried out. On the other hand, as Tsai’s open letter says, “it sets the precedent that the government must put any future major cross-strait agreement to a referendum for the public to decide.”
Thus, if the referendum were to pass, it would mean the current Referendum Act (公投法) would have to be amended so the executive branch would be granted the legal responsibility to call a referendum. The Cabinet would then have to take responsibility for a referendum directly on an ECFA.
However, maybe the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has taught me a lesson. I am not as optimistic as the DPP and always expect the worst. Article 13 of the Referendum Act stipulates that “outside of the provisions of this act, government agencies shall not, under any guise, conduct or commission others to conduct referendums; nor shall they make use of any funds or assign any government personnel for the purpose.”
Articles 2 and 14 also state that the proposed referendum shall be verified and approved by the authorities. Since the DDP knows that the main text of its proposed referendum violates the Referendum Act, it should be prepared for the possibility that the government will reject the proposal.
ONE BIRDCAGE
If this is the case, the “birdcage” on referendums will remain in place and delay the opportunity for the public to review an economic pact with China. The KMT will then use this as an excuse to continue doing whatever it likes.
The Tinbergen Principle in economics says that to attain a given number of independent economic targets, there must be at least an equal number of applicable policy instruments. Based on this, the DPP’s strategy to kill two birds with one stone is very likely to fail.
I suggest that in addition to the current proposed referendum, the Taiwan Solidarity Union take the initiative to propose another direct referendum on an ECFA lest the Ma government obstruct the proposal by citing Article 9 of the Referendum Act, which stipulates that “each referendum proposal is limited to one issue.”
Signatures can be collected for the two proposals at the same time. This will minimize social cost and maximize the odds of holding a referendum. Faced with such a peremptory and arrogant ruling party, it is best for the opposition parties to work together.
Chen Shih-meng is chairman of the Beanstalk Workshop.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under