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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS