As it petitions for a referendum on the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has suggested the following referendum question: “Do you agree that the government should put the signing of an ECFA between Taiwan and China to a referendum to be decided by the people of Taiwan?”
Although the text is in the form of a question, it is not asking the public’s opinion. Rather, the party initiating the referendum is proposing a political opinion for which it is seeking public support to turn it into a binding policy. Current legislation does not give Taiwanese the right to decide on an ECFA in a referendum, nor is the government obligated to hold referendums on policies or agreements.
The significance of our text is to force an amendment of the Referendum Act (公投法) to give the public more direct powers and request the safeguarding of Taiwan through democratic mechanisms and the resolution of disputes over cross-strait policy through a referendum system.
Some say the question should be: “Do you agree to the signing of an ECFA or any other cross-strait economic and trade agreement?” They believe this is enough to stop President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government from signing an ECFA with China, even if the referendum fails to pass the threshold.
This, however, is the same skewed logic that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used when the previous DPP-proposed referendums failed to be passed. It does not have a legal basis, and we certainly should not dance along to the KMT’s tune.
No matter how the referendum question is phrased, it is only legally binding if the threshold is passed. If the threshold is not passed, the government would feel justified in signing an ECFA with China. Besides, by accepting the KMT’s logic, wouldn’t that mean that, in previous referendums, Taiwanese voters have rejected US arms procurements, regaining the KMT’s inappropriately obtained assets, and even Taiwan’s UN bid?
Restrained by the flawed Referendum Act, the cruel fact is that this is our only remaining weapon in addition to pursuing the “mass line” and the legislative alternative.
Opinion polls have showed that many people who are in favor of or not sure about an ECFA are willing to have the issue put to a referendum. That we are appealing to democracy should give us the courage to give it a try.
The KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are not afraid of a public veto of an ECFA because they can sign agreements under many other names. What they are afraid of is that Taiwanese will enjoy referendum rights. A referendum is a symbol of sovereignty, not to mention that such a decision can prevent the two parties from colluding with each other.
Everyone has a different view when interpreting a failed referendum. Hence, we should make every effort to break through the voting threshold to prevent the signing of an ECFA while protecting Taiwan through democracy.
Liu Chien-sin is deputy director of the DPP’s Policy Committee.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS