Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) recently said in an interview that the government would only sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China under three conditions: if the nation needs it, if the public supports it and if there is legislative oversight. The three conditions appear to be reasonable, but the government is using them to deprive voters of their right to make decisions.
First, does Taiwan really need an ECFA with China? We must ask whether the “one China” principle is the premise for the government’s negotiations on an ECFA with Beijing: In other words, does the government view Taiwan as part of China? This is something the government must make clear to the public.
If the negotiations are based on the “one China” premise, the government must hold a referendum on whether or not the public supports this premise to ease public worries. It should then allow the public time to thoroughly discuss and gain an understanding of the ECFA before making a decision. This is the only way to handle the issue according to the Constitution, which states that sovereignty rests with the people.
Second, Wu said an ECFA would only be signed if there is legislative oversight. The Constitution gives the legislature the right to monitor the Cabinet. However, given that the legislature is dominated by the ruling party, it cannot fully arbitrate over social disputes or ease public concern. That is why a major policy such as signing an ECFA must be decided in a referendum.
Third, Wu said support for an ECFA must command more than 60 percent of public support in opinion polls. While I do not dispute the importance of opinion polls in demonstrating the will of the people, the government has often made use of them to manipulate public opinion when dealing with highly debated issues. When politics takes precedence over professionalism, the government could distort public opinion by using biased polls. For example, when various media agencies reported that government approval ratings had hit an all-time low, the administration responded with its own opinion poll showing wide public support, causing widespread doubts about the reliability of official public polls.
Even in Western democracies where public opinion polls are highly developed, people know that public polls are not a substitute for referendums. This is a tenet of democracy and political common sense. The government should stop using public polls as an excuse for not amending the Referendum Act (公民投票法) and give the public the right to decide.
The Referendum Act makes it difficult to hold a vote given its stringent requirements: first, 0.5 percent of all eligible voters in the latest presidential election must sign a referendum proposal, and then, 5 percent of voters must sign a reviewed and approved referendum proposal to establish the referendum. This threshold is even higher than the number of joint signatures required to support the registration of a presidential candidate.
I suggest that this unreasonable law be amended, making the joint signatures of 1.5 of all eligible voters sufficient to establish a referendum.
The Referendum Act also requires that half of all eligible voters in the previous presidential election vote in a referendum for it to be valid. I suggest this be changed to a plurality, or half of all who actually voted in that election.
Cheng Li-chiun is the chief executive officer of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS