On Thursday, the Cabinet’s Referendum Review Committee rejected a referendum proposal on an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). After some media outlets and members of the public had directed strong attacks against a referendum, many members of the Referendum Review Committee also raised doubts over the issue, resulting in the expectation by many that the proposal would be rejected.
However, such a referendum would be very significant for Taiwan’s democracy for the following reasons: An ECFA will not only influence trade and economic issues, it will also affect national sovereignty, labor, gender, environmental and public health issues. Putting the pact to a referendum would make relevant information more transparent and encourage the public to think carefully about it. According to the Referendum Act (公民投票法), once a referendum has been announced, both those who proposed it and those who oppose it can establish their own offices to promote their views. In addition, the Central Election Commission is required to hold at least five information meetings or debates on the issue on national free-to-air television stations. This makes it clear that staging a referendum is not simply a matter of voting; but, more importantly, it is an important democratic process that will encourage the exchange and review of ideas and opinions.
Especially worthy of attention is the fact that one of the main disputes over the ECFA policy is that government information has not been transparent. If an ECFA referendum were passed at a later stage, the government would have to release more information to help the public make a well-informed and rational decision. However, as the referendum proposal was turned down, the government will be able to continue to make major decisions without having to follow the principles of openness and transparency.
An important procedural point to be remembered is that the democratic legitimacy of the Referendum Review Committee is very weak because all of its members are appointed without legislative approval. The idea of allowing such an organization to decide whether or not a proposal for a direct democracy procedure is valid is dubious at best and could well be in breach of the Constitution. Given the current system, the decisions made by the Referendum Review Committee should aspire to a higher degree of objectivity by following the example of the Council of Grand Justices, which issues reasons for their decisions that are signed by the justices supporting the decision.
In addition, the Referendum Review Committee should allow those members who do not agree with a decision to issue a dissenting opinion. By publicizing both supporting and dissenting opinions, the committee would be held to a higher level of accountability.
For these reasons, we believe an ECFA referendum would be of great significance for democratic deliberation and implementation in that it would help Taiwanese consider future prospects for cross-strait relations. An ECFA referendum cannot possibly hurt Taiwan’s democracy. Since the Referendum Review Committee, a body lacking in democratic legitimacy, rejected the proposal, it will lead to further political division and make it harder to encourage the public to deal rationally with China. The people should have a final say on which policies they think will benefit them most. The true value of democracy lies in the fact that decisions by the government must not be allowed to replace decisions made by the public.
Liu Ching-yi is an executive board member of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights. Lai Chung-chiang is an executive board member of the Platform for the Defense of Democracy.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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