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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US