HK formula is a trap, Taiwan warned

LESSONS: Demonstrations against Hong Kong's planned anti-subversion law show that freedom is in danger, but could also serve as an example of peaceful protest

By Monique Chu

STAFF REPORTER

A democracy activist in Hong Kong says that Tuesday's demonstration against the authorities' planned anti-subversion law held a lesson for Taiwan: The "one country, two systems" formula doesn't work.

Alan Ho, a 52-year-old Hong Kong resident, said that he took to the streets on Tuesday to voice his gripes with the region's authorities.

"We are completely fed up with the government," Ho said in a telephone interview. "The new law serves as China's attempt to implant its system in Hong Kong."

Ho was referring to a national security law that critics say will impose Beijing-style control over free speech and the media.

The law, expected to sail through the Hong Kong's Legislative Council next Wednesday, will ban subversion, treason, sedition and other crimes against the state.

A series of anti-subversion measures are expected to be enshrined as Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law by the region's legislature next week.

The Basic Law was negotiated before the region's handover from Britain to China in 1997 and serves as the Special Administrative Region's mini-consititution.

Hong Kong officials insist that freedoms will not be compromised by the new measures and that Article 23 is in line with the national-security laws in other countries.

Ho disagreed: "China said it would give Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy for 50 years, but why did it change its mind six years after Hong Kong's handover from Britain to China?"

China's "one country, two systems" formula for Hong Kong turned out to be a failure, as it is Beijing that has been pushing Hong Kong to enact the national security law, Ho said.

He warned Taiwan not to fall into the trap, because it's a formula that doesn't work.

Jason Yeh, associate professor of finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said some of his Christian and Falung Gong colleagues have misgivings about the new law.

"Although they teach here in the business college, they are afraid that they will be forced to go underground or else they'll be faced with the charge of treason as a result of the new law," Yeh said in a telephone interview.

Yeh, a Hong Kong-based Taiwanese, said that Tuesday's demonstration, which drew some 500,000 people, showed that the residents of Hong Kong were mature enough to have their voices heard through peaceful means.

"Although 500,000 people took to the streets, meaning one out of 13 Hong Kong residents joined the protest, the process was peaceful and rational," Yeh observed.

"This shows that Hong Kong is a mature society where the expression of differing opinions on social issues can be done in rather rational ways," he said. "It's a lesson for Taiwan, where polarized opinions lie at the two extreme ends of the political spectrum."

It's time for a referendum law

The pan-blue camp, which has opposed all efforts to pass a law authorizing referendums, recently made an abrupt U-turn and vowed to pass such a law. It also demanded that the DPP clarify whether such a law should allow for a referendum on the unification-independence issue. Caught flat-footed, the DPP appears to have turned conservative and made a U-turn of its own, saying such an issue should not be put to a referendum, thereby falling into the unification camp's trap.

We do not intend to study the motive behind the pan-blue camp's change of heart. Its show of support for a referendum law should be applauded, no matter what its intentions. What is important is the direction of history and the development of democracy. All the fuss about what kind of questions could be asked is simply an attempt to delay passage of a referendum law.

The three years of the DPP's minority government has made clear the practical need for referendums. China's political bullying of Taiwan and its deceptive ploys with "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong are prime examples of why referendums are necessary. For three years, President Chen Shui-bian's government has been held hostage by the opposition because the pan-blue camp has a majority at the Legislative Yuan. Many important bills have not been passed, national resources have been wasted and the people have grown increasingly frustrated with all politicians.

Once a referendum bill passes, the government will be able to bypass the Legislative Yuan once a bill it believes to have strong public support is blocked on the legislative floor. The matter can be put directly to a referendum and public support can be sought directly. This will counter partisan wrangling. Such a design will benefit all parties because any one of them could one day be voted into power. Political leaders with any foresight should be able to see this.

In terms of what the law should entail, direct expression of the public will is the spirit of referendums. The country's status is the main anxiety of the people of Taiwan. If they cannot express their will directly and democratically regarding their status -- if they are only allowed to express their opinion on trivial matters -- then referendums will count for little.

There are many ways for nations to pursue independence. The Americans gained independence from Britain through war. Mongolia expressed its wish for independence via a referendum and then proceeded to declare independence. Taiwan does not have to emulate Mongolia, nor does it have to decide on the unification-independence issue through a referendum. However, the people should have the right to hold referendums, including one on independence. Whether or not such a question will ever be put to a referendum depends on the status of cross-strait interaction.

If any reminder were needed about how frustrated people become when they feel they lack a voice in government, the massive turnout in Hong Kong on Tuesday came just in time. Tuesday was the sixth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to Chinese rule -- and the people of the territory marked it with a gigantic demonstration against the anti-subversion legislation that their government plans to enact. Unfortunately for the people of Hong Kong, it is unlikely their leaders will alter their plans.

But it is not too late for the people of Taiwan. Hopefully the legislature will quickly pass a law authorizing referendums. That does not mean one should be held right away. After all, referendums are extremely costly, in terms of time, money and the political tensions they inspire. They ought not be undertaken lightly.

The people's voice must be heard

By Lu Chun-yi

In April 1980, all four of Switzerland's television channels broadcast a very important program from 1pm and 8pm almost every day. The show featured discussion of whether the public should continue to pay a "church tax." The discussion of this issue had already gone on for two years with the purpose of letting all citizens express their opinions to their heart's content.

For many years, the people of Switzerland had paid a "church tax." Many European countries -- including Germany, Austria and the Scandinavian countries -- collect this tax, and the revenue is used by the church for spreading the gospel. But in the 1960s dissenting opinions about this tax began to surface because some people neither go to church nor believe in Jesus Christ. So why should they pay such a tax?

Thus reaction followed reaction and discussion followed discussion until the government finally decided to put the matter to a national referendum. The result of the vote in 1970 was that an overwhelming 78 percent of the Swiss people supported continued collection of the church tax, but the attached condition was that the issue should be discussed all over again after 10 years.

The Swiss government's method of preparing for the referendum was to invite representatives from all walks of life -- university professors, workers, farmers and others -- to discuss the matter on television over a period of two years. The public was also greatly concerned about the matter because it related to practical questions of spending and taxation.

The second referendum passed in April 1980, but a friend told me that public support for the tax dropped by 6 percent. Moreover, the condition was still attached that the matter be discussed 10 years later. In other words, this case has already been discussed and put to a poplar vote three times at intervals of a decade.

The Swiss would never relegate the deciaion-making of this kind of matter to parliament. They believe that at times lawmakers are unable to fully reflect popular opinion. Instead, they often represent the interests and ideas of an elite minority. Thus, all important affairs of state are settled through national referendums.

For example, they may hold a referendum to decide whether schools must hold classes in religion. They believe this is an important matter affecting the spiritual development of the next generation and not something that can be decided by lawmakers in parliament alone. Their lawmakers are also very humble and know that their own opinions sometimes cannot reflect public opinion accurately. Although they do their best to fulfill their professional responsibilities by making inquiries and polling the people of their constituencies, they still respect the opinions of the entire citizenry.

The people also clearly recognize the importance of holding referendums on major issues. They don't demand referendums lightly and instead reserve the privilege for issues relating to the national interest and the people's welfare.

In the last few years, some people in Taiwan have consistently pushed for referendums to decide the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the question of whether to enter the UN, and the recent hot issue of Taipei's bid to gain a place in the World Health Organization (WHO). These voices have become louder by the day and are stirring up larger and larger waves.

But every time these voices cry out, we subsequently see legislators from the KMT and PFP begin to toss around the threat of a Chinese invasion in order to suppress the Taiwanese public's will. They even intentionally link referendums -- whether on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant or on WHO entry -- with a declaration of Taiwan's independence. In this way, these blue camp legislators have hopelessly muddled what was originally a very clear and worthwhile objective. It really is maddening. In their stance, they seem more like Chinese officials than representatives of the Taiwanese people. How strange.

Actually, permitting referendums to decide major national issues is lesson one in respecting the rights of all citizens. It is not only appropriate but also of fundamental importance. Prior to holding referendums, the legislature could discuss what issues to decide by referendum. If the legislators feel a certain issue could influence national security, they could shelve it temporarily.

I really can't fathom why even such a simple idea can't get in the door. It's all right for legislators to decide on major national policy issues, but public opinion should be sought as much as possible on issues related to the interests of the entire citizenry.

The stronger the popular support for a policy, the greater people's identification with the policy will be.

The people of Sweden held a referendum to decide whether abortion should be legal. The people of Belgium held a referendum to decide on the legality of euthanasia as well as the best way to handle corpses. The people of Austria used a referendum to decide whether religion should be taught in public schools. And the people of Norway decided by referendum whether or not to build nuclear power plants.

None of these issues were decided by lawmakers in parliament. Instead they were decided by the entire citizenry of each nation through referendums, and these are the examples from which we should learn.

We shouldn't bring up politically very sensitive topics -- like the independence plebiscites of the three Baltic countries or East Timor -- every time the subject of referendums arises. There are many other important issues affecting people's lives to discuss.

Why do our lawmakers have to be so authoritarian? There is no need for that. Moreover, quite a few lawmakers have the interests of their own financial consortiums to consider. There are very few truly professional lawmakers. This is what we really cannot accept.

Lu Chun-yi is a minister of the Presbyterian Church.

HK shows way to referendum: premier

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

The protest in Hong Kong against the special administration's planned anti-subversion law on Tuesday highlighted that the "one country, two systems" policy is unfeasible and that it is necessary and urgent for Taiwan to enact a referendum law, Premier Yu Shyi-kun said yesterday.

"The march symbolizes that the basic human rights Hong Kong people used to enjoy before the special administration was handed over to China six years ago were gradually encroached on, and the illusion Hong Kong people have had about the `one country, two systems' has been completely shattered," Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung quoted Yu as saying yesterday morning.

The march also brings out the necessity and urgency of Taiwan's enacting legislation for a referendum, Yu said.

"With the implementation of the referendum law, we don't have to take to the streets to safeguard our freedom and democracy because the legislation would empower the 23 million Taiwanese people to decide on significant national issues via a popular vote," Yu said.

Yu made the remarks during the weekly closed-door Cabinet affairs meeting yesterday morning in response to the largest organized protest in Hong Kong since 1989.

Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to streets on Tuesday to denounce the Hong Kong government's planned anti-subversion law, which Beijing has been pressing Hong Kong to enact.

The law would be enshrined as Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, or mini-constitution. While most marchers' prime target was the anti-subversion measure, many others said they were frustrated by the government's handling of the ailing economy and the SARS epidemic, which killed some 300 people in the territory.

As Taiwan has experienced the transfer of power from authoritarian rule to a democracy, Yu said, Taiwanese people can empathize with the feelings of the people of Hong Kong.

"I'm here calling on the nation to fully support the people of Hong Kong's campaign to protect their basic human rights and freedom and to realize the true danger of the `one country, two systems' policy," Yu said.

Yu yesterday also instructed the Mainland Affairs Council to closely monitor the development of Hong Kong's situation and present a response measure as soon as possible.

In addition, Yu requested government agencies concerned to take the initiative to defend the freedom and human rights of Taiwanese people based in Hong Kong.

Briefing Yu about the impact of Hong Kong's planned anti-subversion measures on Taiwan-Hong Kong relations during the Cabinet meeting, Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen said that Taiwan-Hong Kong relations could backpedal if the legislation is enacted.

"It's a serious matter to legislate such basic human rights as freedom of speech, publication, association and gathering," Lin quoted Tsai as saying. "If the anti-subversion law is enacted, it only proves that China cannot keep its promise of maintaining the status quo of the special administration for 50 years." Responding to Yu's request, Tsai pledged to evaluate the situation in Hong Kong.

Pro-democracy lawmakers ask Tung to reconsider

AP , HONG KONG

A huge protest against an anti-subversion bill highlighted deep fears among the public that Hong Kong's freedoms could be eroded, and pro-democracy lawmakers said yesterday the government should reconsider it.

"The people had one key message for Hong Kong leader Tung Chee Wah's administration: `Listen to us,'" political commentator Christine Loh said, a day after about a half-million people turned out to condemn the planned national security law.

The demonstration was Hong Kong's biggest since a million people took to the streets in outrage and fear after China used troops to crush the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement in Beijing on June 4, 1989.

Journalists gathered outside Tung's office early yesterday to ask about the latest protest, but the highly unpopular Hong Kong chief executive brushed aside their questions.

"It just shows a complete disconnect," Loh said. "He can't just hide in a bunker."

Twenty-one pro-democracy lawmakers, from the 60-member Legislative Council, signed a letter to Tung yesterday asking that he stop the bill from moving forward and consult more openly with the public. They also want to meet with Tung, said lawmaker Cyd Ho.

"Now that he's seen the number of people marching in the streets, if he still keeps his head in the sand, the next time there's going to be more," Ho said by telephone.

Tung issued a statement Tuesday night saying he was "concerned" about the large number of protesters and reiterating assurances his government will "continue to take active steps to maintain and safeguard rights and freedoms."