President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration is pushing hard for a referendum on Taiwan's entry into the WHO and is also preparing to sneak in a referendum on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant as an important component of next year's presidential election. But the draft bill that would have provided a legal basis for these referendums was tabled at the end of the recent legislative session.
It is urgent that the Chen administration push for a referendum on the fate of the power plant. Even if former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄), who strongly backs the plan, has already focused on the big picture by emphasizing that he won't necessarily switch allegiance away from Chen if a referendum on the power plant is not held, this matter concerns a promise that Chen made to Lin and others. At the same time, Lin has said that holding a referendum is a right that citizens should have. He has said, "Those opposed to referendums are unqualified to become politicians in a normal country with a democratic system."
So the long struggle for a referendum on the power plant is less about the anti-nuclear movement than it is about winning rights for the public.
But the Chen administration isn't starting off with the plant issue. Instead it has chosen the WHO as an issue because Taiwan was bullied by China in its recent attempt to join the global health body, and the entire country is seething. While these wounds are still fresh, the popular will can be harnessed to push for a referendum on the WHO, paving the way for a referendum on the plant. A draft bill for a referendum law will be sure to succeed as well.
Unfortunately, the Chen administration's drive for a referendum on the WHO, like the hastily conceived referendum on the power plant, is all based on expediency and passivity. Presidential Office Secretary-General Chiou I-jen (
On the other hand, in response to claims by the opposition parties that no one in Taiwan opposes joining the WHO and therefore there is no need for a referendum, the government replies that if the status quo is maintained, China "won't take notice of us." Thus, it follows we must use this gentle and democratic method to demonstrate our determination.
The only problem is that if a referendum is being pushed because the government is "angry" or to get attention from China, then it has already become a tactic and not a goal in itself. It has already become an expedient of the government and not a fundamental right of the people. This differs little from the governing style of fits, starts and sudden retreats that the Chen administration has demonstrated over the past three years.
Sun Tzu's (
If the push for a referendum is driven by momentary pique, then no wonder that when the Presidential Office made clear it hoped the driving force for a referendum would come from the public, the Northern Taiwan Society threw cold water on these hopes by saying, "President Chen should say something first to show his determination so that when the time comes and everyone is mobilized, the Presidential Office won't pull back."
The primary reason the referendum issue has gotten off track is that referendums have been linked to the unification--independence debate and thus are viewed as something inimical to the nation's interests or too dangerous.
In fact, in modern nations where power is in the hands of the people, it isn't enough just to have a system of elected representatives in the legislature. This merely creates "rule by a political elite." After voters have cast their ballots, those elected can act however they please, and political parties become the politicians' only bosses.
To balance the major shortcomings of this sort of representative government, it is necessary to strengthen popular democracy by giving added weight to direct democracy. In the past, such direct democracy faced difficulties in practice, but today's communications revolution has already removed such obstacles. For example, the US has a federal system, and it has long been commonplace for states to hold referendums. When an important state-level election comes around, items of disputed legislation are frequently put to the public for a vote.
Designing referendums on issues ranging from the people's livelihood to domestic administration and urgent matters of foreign policy -- and quickly passing legislation to put such referendums on a sound legal basis -- should be the common responsibility of all political parties in Taiwan and the public as well. As for the various tangential issues such as "anger" or "wanting to get noticed," let's save our breath.
Sun Ching-yu is a freelance columnist.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS