Taiwan Tati Cultural and Educational Foundation

 
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Editorials of Interest Taipei Times ECFA: Letting the public decide

ECFA: Letting the public decide

Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) recently said in an interview that the government would only sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China under three conditions: if the nation needs it, if the public supports it and if there is legislative oversight. The three conditions appear to be reasonable, but the government is using them to deprive voters of their right to make decisions.

First, does Taiwan really need an ECFA with China? We must ask whether the “one China” principle is the premise for the government’s negotiations on an ECFA with Beijing: In other words, does the government view Taiwan as part of China? This is something the government must make clear to the public.

If the negotiations are based on the “one China” premise, the government must hold a referendum on whether or not the public supports this premise to ease public worries. It should then allow the public time to thoroughly discuss and gain an understanding of the ECFA before making a decision. This is the only way to handle the issue according to the Constitution, which states that sovereignty rests with the people.

Second, Wu said an ECFA would only be signed if there is legislative oversight. The Constitution gives the legislature the right to monitor the Cabinet. However, given that the legislature is dominated by the ruling party, it cannot fully arbitrate over social disputes or ease public concern. That is why a major policy such as signing an ECFA must be decided in a referendum.

Third, Wu said support for an ECFA must command more than 60 percent of public support in opinion polls. While I do not dispute the importance of opinion polls in demonstrating the will of the people, the government has often made use of them to manipulate public opinion when dealing with highly debated issues. When politics takes precedence over professionalism, the government could distort public opinion by using biased polls. For example, when various media agencies reported that government approval ratings had hit an all-time low, the administration responded with its own opinion poll showing wide public support, causing widespread doubts about the reliability of official public polls.

Even in Western democracies where public opinion polls are highly developed, people know that public polls are not a substitute for referendums. This is a tenet of democracy and political common sense. The government should stop using public polls as an excuse for not amending the Referendum Act (公民投票法) and give the public the right to decide.

The Referendum Act makes it difficult to hold a vote given its stringent requirements: first, 0.5 percent of all eligible voters in the latest presidential election must sign a referendum proposal, and then, 5 percent of voters must sign a reviewed and approved referendum proposal to establish the referendum. This threshold is even higher than the number of joint signatures required to support the registration of a presidential candidate.

I suggest that this unreasonable law be amended, making the joint signatures of 1.5 of all eligible voters sufficient to establish a referendum.

The Referendum Act also requires that half of all eligible voters in the previous presidential election vote in a referendum for it to be valid. I suggest this be changed to a plurality, or half of all who actually voted in that election.



Cheng Li-chiun is the chief executive officer of Taiwan Thinktank.

TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON

Source: Taipei Times - Editorials 2009/12/06



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Facebook! Twitter!  
 

Newsflash

A screen grab of the a short video clip released by Sky News showing rows of Chinese paramilitary forces manning the streets of Ngaba, eastern Tibet.

DHARAMSHALA, March 8: Even as senior Chinese leaders hogged the media in Beijing, on the sidelines of the rubber stamp parliamentary session, describing self-immolations in Tibet as “terrorism in disguise,” Tibetans at the centre of the protests have a completely different story to tell.