Proposals for a referendum on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) have been turned down a record four times in a row, prompting widespread demand for the Referendum Act (公民投票法) to be amended. As well as lowering the thresholds for holding referendums in terms of the number of proposers and the number of votes required for a referendum to pass, and defining the effects of referendums more clearly, people are calling for the abolition of the Referendum Review Commission (RRC, 公民投票審議委員會), which is such an obstacle to holding referendums.
The RRC was set up under the Cabinet in accordance with the Referendum Act. Its main function is to determine whether a referendum proposal is a national or local matter. When doubts are raised about how Article 2 of the Referendum Act is to be interpreted, the RRC has to make a correct and proper interpretation so that a proposed referendum can go ahead smoothly. According to various laws concerning government organization, and to Interpretation No. 645 of the Constitutional Court, the RRC is not an independent agency but subordinate to the Cabinet. The RRC differs from the Central Election Commission (CEC, 中央選舉委員會) in its organization, purpose and powers, because the CEC is constituted as an independent agency, and so should exercise its powers related to elections, recall and referendums independently and in a non-partisan manner. The existing Referendum Act has many shortcomings, but it is not hard to understand from it, either literally or according to legal theory, the clear and limited scope of the RRC’s powers.
The result of the ECFA referendum proposal review is questionable, because the majority view of the commissioners and the reasons given for the decision do not stand up to the test of basic legal theory. According to common sense and to the experience of various countries, when reviewing referendum proposals, it is enough for the wording of the proposal to be clear and comprehensible so that voters can express their agreement or disagreement with a major policy or law. The experience of Western countries in holding referendums shows that they contribute to social participation and the formation of public opinion, no matter whether they are passed or not. In the run-up to referendums, governments are bound to review or even change their policies.
Although the RRC is not an independent agency, its members should still exercise their powers independently and professionally. However, the reasons appended to the judgments rejecting the ECFA referendum proposals are faulty in that minority opinions were not included. Dissenting opinions should have been fully respected and included in the written reasons published by the RRC, so that the referendum’s proposers could be fully informed.
The existing mechanism for reviewing referendum proposals needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. Besides, now that the ECFA has come into effect and referendum proposals having been blocked by procedural obstacles, the government must proceed cautiously with organizing the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Committee and other bilateral mechanisms for negotiating and resolving disputes. The government should not forget that the Referendum Act defines its purpose as ensuring that citizens can exercise their civil rights directly. According to the legal principle of a maiore ad minus it can be deduced that the government should be subject to the same or stricter limitations when negotiating any kind of agreement, or its powers will be hard to justify.
Chen Miao-fen is an associate professor of law at National Taiwan University and a member of the Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Commission.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS