By Lin Kien-tsu 林健次, translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The public is the master of the country. When the public elects representatives, this does not change the fact that the public is the master, and the representatives are their servants. If servants turn around and limit the rights of the public to have a choice in resolving public matters, then the servants lose their legitimacy, and the public has the right to tell these servants to step down.
The Referendum Act (公投法) stipulates that for a referendum to be valid, there must be a turnout of more than half of all eligible voters. This threshold is even higher than that of the presidential and legislative elections, and basically limits the right of the public to make policy decisions. In making this law, the legislature violated the fundamental spirit of the representative system and thus lost its legitimacy.
The legislature is now made up of lawmakers who have been elected under the single member district, two vote system. To be elected, they only needed to win more votes than their opponents. For the legislators-at-large, the number of votes cast for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) combined amounted to less than half of the population. If a legislature made up of legislators elected by these amounts of votes doesn't see a problem with the Referendum Act turning the servants into masters, then it has lost its legitimacy.
The KMT has won an almost three-quarter majority in the legislature in an election with conditions far less strict than those in the Referendum Act. Many people, including some KMT supporters, are concerned that absolute power will lead to absolute corruption. These concerns are another indication of the lack of legitimacy of the legislature.
Many people worry that if Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) becomes president, this will bring the KMT even more power and corruption. Ma emphasizes that he respects the will of the public. KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) also says referendums are sacred, and that the KMT would never abuse its power, even if it was the sole ruling party. If this is true, the easiest way to convince the public of the sincerity of Ma and the KMT, and solve the legislature's legitimacy crisis, would be to lower the referendum threshold to the same level as that for the legislative elections.
The KMT is against holding two referendums in tandem with the presidential election; they say this is using the referendum to "hijack" the poll. But in the Jan. 12 legislative elections, the number of votes cast for the DPP and KMT combined was equivalent to less than half of the population. This shows that even if the referendums were held in accordance with the same standards as the elections, and the DPP and KMT worked together, the referendums would still not necessarily obtain the minimum number of votes, let alone if they were held separately.
If the KMT really has misgivings about elections being "hijacked," it should insist on holding the referendums separately, instead of finding excuses to suppress public opinion and referendums. The legislature should amend the Referendum Act. Only in this way can the KMT lend any legitimacy to its position of holding the referendums separately from the presidential election.
Ma is the one in control of the KMT. If he could lead the KMT- controlled legislature to amend the Referendum Act before the elections and show his ability to lead the KMT's legislators, he would eradicate any suspicion among the public that his election would lead to an abuse of power by the KMT.
This article supports the Nuke-4 Referendum Initiative Association, and its hunger strike in front of the legislature, and expresses my respect for the group.
Lin Kien-tsu is a member of Taiwan Heart and the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
2008年3月16日 星期日
2008年3月12日 星期三
Making "Referendum" A Dirty Word
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's (吳伯雄) announcement yesterday that his party would boycott the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on UN entry using the name "Taiwan" and back the KMT's own on "returning to the UN" would appear to be the final nail in the coffin of the DPP's plebiscite.
Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.
Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.
The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.
The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.
The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.
Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.
But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.
As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.
The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.
The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.
As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.
Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.
Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.
Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.
The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.
The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.
The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.
Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.
But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.
As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.
The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.
The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.
As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.
Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.
Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.
2008年3月9日 星期日
No Time to Dally Over Options For
By Margot Chen 陳麗菊, translated by Angela Hong
The referendums on applying for UN membership face a difficult fate. If neither referendum passes, they will naturally become a tool for Beijing in its mission to undermine Taiwan's independence. Knowing this, it's not surprising that the fate of these two referendums are on the minds of many people.
There are several courses of action that should be considered.
First, the referendums could be moved from the election date and the voter threshold for valid results lowered. Separating the plebiscites from the election would only be significant if the threshold were simultaneously changed. Otherwise the referendums would still fail to pass, rendering the effort to move them from March 22 pointless.
If the referendums were to be moved and the threshold lowered, what would be an appropriate date for them? The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that the Central Election Commission should hold referendums within one to six months after a referendum proposal has passed the application procedure.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) referendums on applying for UN membership were both formally announced on Feb. 1, which means the referendums must be held before the end of July at the latest. Since the Beijing Olympics are in August, holding the polls sooner rather than later might help avoid fueling tension with China.
Another scenario would be for the referendums and the election to be held in tandem, but with a lower voter threshold. That would increase the chances of the plebiscites passing.
However, the pan-blue camp would oppose such an idea, since it proposed its mirror referendum with the goal of preventing the DPP poll from passing. The KMT rationale was essentially that the pan-green camp would use its referendum to garner votes in the presidential election. To combat this, it proposed its own version.
But now it seems clear that the DPP has not made any electoral strides by touting its plebiscite. Nevertheless, the pan-blue camp will still do what it can to stop the DPP poll from passing to ensure that a poll using the name "Taiwan" doesn't succeed.
The two plebiscites are not just about representation at the UN. The choice of the word "joining" in the DPP version and "rejoining" in the KMT version represents different positions on the core issue of national identity and radically different political ideologies.
As a final scenario, the nation could consider going through with the referendums as planned. No date changes and no changes to the voter threshold. Instead, the legislature could pass a resolution as a sort of "airbag" to minimize the damage caused by the failure of the two referendums.
If the referendums take place on March 22 and the threshold has not been lowered, it seems both will fail, much to the delight of Beijing and to the relief of Washington and Tokyo, as it would rid them of concern over one source of tension between China and Taiwan.
If this happens, a legislative solution could at least offer a patch-up, but the content of the resolution would be extremely important.
Unfortunately, the KMT has no sincere desire to negotiate with the DPP. Once again their behavior is indicative of their approach to politics: pursue party interests over national interests.
The drama surrounding the referendums and election has turned into a tragedy in which a matter of utmost importance has become nothing more than a political tool. That reality is a far cry from the point of the referendum mechanism, which is to give the public a voice.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
The referendums on applying for UN membership face a difficult fate. If neither referendum passes, they will naturally become a tool for Beijing in its mission to undermine Taiwan's independence. Knowing this, it's not surprising that the fate of these two referendums are on the minds of many people.
There are several courses of action that should be considered.
First, the referendums could be moved from the election date and the voter threshold for valid results lowered. Separating the plebiscites from the election would only be significant if the threshold were simultaneously changed. Otherwise the referendums would still fail to pass, rendering the effort to move them from March 22 pointless.
If the referendums were to be moved and the threshold lowered, what would be an appropriate date for them? The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that the Central Election Commission should hold referendums within one to six months after a referendum proposal has passed the application procedure.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) referendums on applying for UN membership were both formally announced on Feb. 1, which means the referendums must be held before the end of July at the latest. Since the Beijing Olympics are in August, holding the polls sooner rather than later might help avoid fueling tension with China.
Another scenario would be for the referendums and the election to be held in tandem, but with a lower voter threshold. That would increase the chances of the plebiscites passing.
However, the pan-blue camp would oppose such an idea, since it proposed its mirror referendum with the goal of preventing the DPP poll from passing. The KMT rationale was essentially that the pan-green camp would use its referendum to garner votes in the presidential election. To combat this, it proposed its own version.
But now it seems clear that the DPP has not made any electoral strides by touting its plebiscite. Nevertheless, the pan-blue camp will still do what it can to stop the DPP poll from passing to ensure that a poll using the name "Taiwan" doesn't succeed.
The two plebiscites are not just about representation at the UN. The choice of the word "joining" in the DPP version and "rejoining" in the KMT version represents different positions on the core issue of national identity and radically different political ideologies.
As a final scenario, the nation could consider going through with the referendums as planned. No date changes and no changes to the voter threshold. Instead, the legislature could pass a resolution as a sort of "airbag" to minimize the damage caused by the failure of the two referendums.
If the referendums take place on March 22 and the threshold has not been lowered, it seems both will fail, much to the delight of Beijing and to the relief of Washington and Tokyo, as it would rid them of concern over one source of tension between China and Taiwan.
If this happens, a legislative solution could at least offer a patch-up, but the content of the resolution would be extremely important.
Unfortunately, the KMT has no sincere desire to negotiate with the DPP. Once again their behavior is indicative of their approach to politics: pursue party interests over national interests.
The drama surrounding the referendums and election has turned into a tragedy in which a matter of utmost importance has become nothing more than a political tool. That reality is a far cry from the point of the referendum mechanism, which is to give the public a voice.
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
2008年1月10日 星期四
Rejecting the Tools of Democracy
After undertaking months' campaign to collect 1 million signatures endorsing its proposed referendum, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had a sudden change of heart two weeks prior to election day and asked voters to boycott tomorrow's referendums -- including its own.
Making the decision during the KMT Central Standing Committee, the party justified its position by arguing that the "referendums have been twisted and kidnapped by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] to be used as a tool to provoke conflict."
KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) added that the party had not ruled out boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title, "Republic of China" -- that are scheduled to be held on March 22 in tandem with the presidential election.
It is dumbfounding how easy it is for the KMT, in today's democratic Taiwan, to disregard the voices of millions in such a casual way: The opinions of a few Central Standing Committee members have effortlessly overruled the collective opinion of more than 1 million petitioners.
Taiwan has come a long way from the days of authoritarian rule. No direct presidential election was allowed and freedom of speech and the press was a pipe dream. Today, people can freely exercise their rights without fear that they could be dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and disappear.
Some trumpet participation in referendums as the "people's right." But a closer look shows it would be more precise to say that it is the "people's privilege," because not every country practices direct democracy. With this is mind, anyone who is a proud Taiwanese should not easily abandon that special privilege by forsaking their referendum ballots.
It is not that surprising to hear calls from the KMT to boycott the referendums. After all, it was the pan-blue camp's actions that resulted in the "bird cage" version of the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which resorts to technicalities to restrict the use of referendums, depriving Taiwanese of greater democratic power.
But anyone who respects the country's democratic pioneers and feels a sense of responsibility in defending the country's hard-won democracy should not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the KMT's anti-democratic rhetoric.
Two referendums will be held tomorrow -- one initiated by the DPP on recovering assets stolen by the KMT, and the other proposed by the KMT to empower the legislature to investigate misconduct of senior government officials and their families.
Whether individuals agree or disagree with the questions addressed in the two referendums, they should cast their referendum ballots tomorrow and make their voices heard.
Taking part in a referendum is a privilege but also an obligation from which each citizen of a democracy should draw pride.
The boycott proposal is not only an insult to voters, but also harmful to the nation's effort to consolidate democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 11, 2008.
Making the decision during the KMT Central Standing Committee, the party justified its position by arguing that the "referendums have been twisted and kidnapped by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] to be used as a tool to provoke conflict."
KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) added that the party had not ruled out boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title, "Republic of China" -- that are scheduled to be held on March 22 in tandem with the presidential election.
It is dumbfounding how easy it is for the KMT, in today's democratic Taiwan, to disregard the voices of millions in such a casual way: The opinions of a few Central Standing Committee members have effortlessly overruled the collective opinion of more than 1 million petitioners.
Taiwan has come a long way from the days of authoritarian rule. No direct presidential election was allowed and freedom of speech and the press was a pipe dream. Today, people can freely exercise their rights without fear that they could be dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and disappear.
Some trumpet participation in referendums as the "people's right." But a closer look shows it would be more precise to say that it is the "people's privilege," because not every country practices direct democracy. With this is mind, anyone who is a proud Taiwanese should not easily abandon that special privilege by forsaking their referendum ballots.
It is not that surprising to hear calls from the KMT to boycott the referendums. After all, it was the pan-blue camp's actions that resulted in the "bird cage" version of the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which resorts to technicalities to restrict the use of referendums, depriving Taiwanese of greater democratic power.
But anyone who respects the country's democratic pioneers and feels a sense of responsibility in defending the country's hard-won democracy should not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the KMT's anti-democratic rhetoric.
Two referendums will be held tomorrow -- one initiated by the DPP on recovering assets stolen by the KMT, and the other proposed by the KMT to empower the legislature to investigate misconduct of senior government officials and their families.
Whether individuals agree or disagree with the questions addressed in the two referendums, they should cast their referendum ballots tomorrow and make their voices heard.
Taking part in a referendum is a privilege but also an obligation from which each citizen of a democracy should draw pride.
The boycott proposal is not only an insult to voters, but also harmful to the nation's effort to consolidate democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 11, 2008.
2008年1月9日 星期三
Just What the KMT Mean by "Scared"?
By Lien Chan 林洽
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
