After more than a year of the government trying to push an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, the majority of people in Taiwan are still none the wiser.
Given the situation and the importance of the agreement for the future of the country, we would suggest that the time is ripe for the government to hold a national referendum on the issue.
When the Referendum Act (公民投票法) was passed, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers rejected a clause that would have given the government the right to hold, on its own initiative, advisory referendums on issues of national interest.
Consequently, even though the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) attempted to force a referendum last year on whether the government should go ahead and arrange a referendum on the ECFA, effectively a referendum on having a referendum, the Cabinet’s Referendum Review Committee still vetoed the proposal on the grounds that it “lacked substantial content.”
It goes without saying that this kind of law is an obstacle to people’s rights.
The Referendum Act, dubbed the “Birdcage Referendum Act” because of the reduced format in which it was finally passed, barely made it into law.
However, Article 2 of the Act does state that referendums can be used to “advocate the institution or annulment of major policies of the central government,” while Article 16 grants the legislature the right to propose referendums on important government policies.
Once any proposed referendum has been agreed to by the legislature, the Central Election Commission would then be expected to set the wheels in motion. This is one possible way forward.
As this is a vote on a “substantial policy,” it should be put to an open ballot, with the legislators voting according to the opinion of their own constituents, reflecting the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent.
Article 16 was later ruled constitutional by the Council of Grand Justices in Interpretation No. 645.
In this case, once the referendum proposal has been agreed in the legislature, it can be passed without the need for it to go through the referendum committee.
The KMT has a majority in the legislature, and they should be championing an ECFA referendum on the strength of both party politics and responsible politics.
The KMT has continually emphasized the importance and benefits of an ECFA. If the government is truly confident in the agreement, and believe that it is the right thing to do for the country and the people, then they should be actively seeking the public’s show of support for, and endorsement of, the agreement.
This being the case, you would expect them to actually be quite positive about the idea of holding a referendum on the issue with no further delay. What would they possibly have to lose?
Unlike issues put to referendums in the past, the government’s ECFA policy is a significant issue involving the livelihood of the Taiwanese and the economy.
Holding a referendum like this would be a good way to have the policy discussed at length through rational debate, and would go some way toward making up for the current failings in representative politics in this country.
Hong Chi-chang is former chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation and a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers