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
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS