Roh considers a referendum on remaining in office

SCANDAL-RIDDEN: His Cabinet has offered to quit but the South Korean president is determined not to go so easily

AP , SEOUL

Facing widespread discontent, President Roh Moo-hyun said yesterday that he was considering a national referendum on whether he should resign, and rejected an offer from his Cabinet and presidential aides to quit.

But Roh, who has a hostile relationship with the opposition-controlled National Assembly, acknowledged it was unclear whether a referendum was legal. The confusion raised the possibility of months of political wrangling at a time when South Korea is trying to revive its faltering economy and stop North Korea's development of nuclear weapons through peaceful dialogue.

"If a president is sacrificed in the middle of his term and if that serves to straighten out South Korean politics, I think that is a bigger stride forward for the development of South Korean politics than a case in which the president simply completes his five-year term," Roh said at a news conference.

The leadership crisis followed months of increasingly virulent criticism of Roh, whose blunt style and perceived inconsistency on major policy issues have alienated many South Koreans. Corruption scandals involving presidential aides have also drained his approval ratings.

Roh's rejection of resignation offers from the Cabinet eased chaos in the short term, but the months ahead are likely to be difficult. Roh, a former human rights lawyer who took office in February, suggested the law could be altered to allow for a referendum to assess the public's confidence in him.

"I think the law on a referendum could be changed," he said. A debate on a law change, or a constitutional amendment, would likely be a lengthy, divisive process.

The opposition Grand National Party, which controls the National Assembly, said Roh's behavior was baffling.

"President Roh should clearly propose how and when he is going to ask the people about their confidence in him before the confusion amplifies," the party said in a statement.

The political upheaval began Friday, when Roh said he wanted a "pardon" from the people to restore moral strength in his 8-month-old government, which is besieged by hostile legislators and unfriendly news media.

Roh had said he was unsure about a referendum because it could hurt national security amid tension over North Korea's nuclear development.

Roh's initiative was a risky political gamble aimed at winning a fresh mandate for his increasingly unpopular government. The opposition Grand National Party, which controls a majority at the National Assembly, demanded a national referendum.

Prosecutors are investigating an allegation that Choi Do-sool, a longtime Roh aide, received 1.1 billion won (US$956,000) from SK Group, South Korea's third-largest conglomerate, shortly after Roh won December's presidential election.

SK, an oil and mobile phone giant, is also accused of giving 10 billion won (US$8.7 million) to the GNP. The opposition party denies the charge.

Lee attacks China-centric ideology

WEAKNESS: The KMT's Sino-centric indoctrination has led to a confused people and a nation that cannot stand up for itself, the former president said yesterday

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

"This China-centric frame of thinking has made Taiwan incapable of standing up to pressure by outside powers and foreign interference, downgrading Taiwan into something like a colony."－Lee Teng-hui, former president

Former President Lee Teng-hui yesterday lashed out the ideology of his old party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), blaming it for many of Taiwan's political ills and hindering the development of a true Taiwanese national consciousness.

What Lee called a "Greater China national consciousness," -- an identification with China and the nationalistic goal of establishing China as a world power -- which has been drummed into Taiwanese during half a century of KMT rule, has been an obstacle to constitutional reform and has resulted in the wasting of resources, a confused political system, political turbulence, ideological confrontation and partisan feuding.

It has also been a major stumbling block to the nation's economic and social development, Lee said.

Lecturing pupils of his "National Policy Class" at the Lee Teng-hui School, a political think tank established by Lee, the former president said: "This China-centric frame of thinking has made Taiwan incapable of standing up to pressure by outside powers and foreign interference, downgrading Taiwan into something like a colony."

Because Taiwan has long been ruled by foreign powers, the country hasn't formed an adequate Taiwan-centric frame of thinking and this has led to the public's vague understanding of national identity, which itself has undermined national solidarity.

"At the Double Ten National Day celebrations Friday, there were even some people calling out `long live Hu Jintao'. The people saying that were apparently ignorant of which country he lives in. This is the most horrible and chaotic thing about Taiwan," Lee said.

Lee said apart from China's constant "barbaric" threats which have prevented Taiwan from dismantling many of the structures of the KMT dictatorship, the people of Taiwan haven't been inspired with a Taiwan-centric frame of thinking, partly due to the ideological education imposed by the KMT.

As the president of the Republic of China for 12 years, Lee said his reforms met with great difficulties that any normal country wouldn't have had, including democratization and promotion of the nation's international standing.

He said during his tenure as president, six sets of constitutional amendments were enacted, but met with obdurate resistance from die-hard unification supporters who opposed changing the constitutional system from a design which included the 35 provinces in China to one that fits the nation's current territorial reality.

He also said the now defunct Taiwan Provincial Government, which ought to be completely abolished, still keeps about 400 staff members and a nominal chairperson -- something President Chen Shui-bian should work to correct. Lee said, however, that Chen was prevented from making this common-sense move by the strong pro-China forces in Taiwan.

Lee concluded the country should continue the campaign drive to change the nation's name to Taiwan to distinguish it from China and enlarge Taiwan's footprint in the international community.

In related news, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday welcomed KMT Chairman Lien Chan's promise to amend the Constitution were he elected president next year, but urged Lien to be "creative" in carrying out reform.

Lien announced on the pan-blue alliance's Double Ten Day celebrations in Chiayi County Friday that he would initiate constitutional reforms were he to be elected.

Rationale for a new constitution still lacking

By Max Sun

The calls for a new constitution seem to have become mainstream recently. But why is a new constitution needed? No reasonable answer has been given so far. All the proposed reasons given have been either metaphorical or analogous. For example, "the existing Constitution was designed for China. It's just like wearing an oversized cloth for Taiwan to adopt such an unsuitable Consti-tution here. Therefore, it's better to design a new cloth, rather than constantly fixing the old one."

First, in terms of such metaphors, although a constitution can be portrayed as a cloth metaphorically, it can also be portrayed as other objects as well -- for example, whiskey. It seems reasonable to replace an old cloth with a new one. But for whiskey, the longer it's kept in oak buckets, the better the liquor tastes. We can certainly throw old clothes away. But shouldn't we cherish long-preserved whiskey and not throw it away?

In terms of such analogies, the proposed analogy between a constitution/country and cloth/person cannot stand up to close scrutiny. There were only 13 states in the US when it promulgated its Constitution. Over the past two centuries, the territory of the US has expanded several times. But we have never heard Americans say that "the country is getting bigger, and can hardly fit in the small cloth made in the past. Therefore, we need to establish a new Constitution."

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany was initially established for the transitional period of unification. But after East Germany joined the Federal Republic of Germany, the basic law was actually quite suitable. So we have never heard the German people request a new constitution because they are once again a united nation.

The current metaphors and analogies have been proposed because no other justifiable reasons can be given. Since no straightforward reasons can be cited, politicians can only talk about soft, sentimental and intuitive metaphors and analogies.

Both metaphors and analogies can touch people. But it's surely harmful if a nation's politics is based on them. They may even hamper discussion -- which is the foundation of democratic politics -- because rational discussion is based on reason.

Under the authoritarian system of the past decades, politics in Taiwan was distorted -- sorrowful sentiments, protests and anger on the one hand, and patriotism, missions and historical responsibilities on the other. We are no help to the future of Taiwan's democracy if we continue the irrational actions during the process of the nation's democratization at present.

If politicians want to lead the nation in a healthy and democratic direction, they must come up with reasonable proof when proposing any political views.

Take the new constitution issue for example: Those who actively call for a new constitution should reasonably clarify why exactly the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) is unfit. What constitutional articles are suitable for use only in China, not Taiwan? What factors have made it so difficult to amend these unsuitable articles that the situation can only be remedied by the drafting of a new constitution?

They will be proven irrational if they cannot offer such rational explanations. Unreasonable politics is merely considered passion, or even populism, but it can never be called democracy. To accomplish democracy, people have to be reasonable.

It's hoped that the existing political forces can change their attitudes and achieve "reasonable politics." If they are unable to do so, at least the public should walk in this direction in order to pressure politicians to walk the right way.

Max Sun is an assistant professor in the department of political science at National Chengchi University.

Lien at a loss for a leg to stand on

Much to everyone's surprise Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan announced that if elected president next year, he will immediately convene the National Assembly to amend the Constitution. This was not the first time, however, that Lien has made a dramatic U-turn on campaign and policy proposals. These about-faces have been occurring with increasing frequency and usually after President Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party made a similar proposal. It looks as if the pan-blue camp's campaign team is in trouble.

Lien's announcement on Friday would not have been so surprising if he hadn't been so dismissive when Chen said last month that he would, if re-elected, push for the writing of a new constitution by 2006. Lien's response: "boring." Guess he discovered it wasn't so boring after all.

It is never advisable to respond to a rival's announcements with off-the cuff remarks, especially condescending ones. Unless the pronouncement is completely outrageous, it is always advisable for a politician to observe the response of the general public before formulating an official response. If you disagree with what was said then you should be able to say why -- and propose better alternatives.

Lien's initial response reflected at least two things -- that he genuinely opposes amending the Constitution and that his campaign advisors are not doing their job. After all, pan-blue lawmakers have boycotted the DPP's invitations to negotiate on revamping the Constitution on at least four occasions. Had Lien maintained his position, he might have at least earned respect for sticking to his guns, even from those who disagree with him.

If he really has changed his mind, the least he could do was come up with a better plan for a new constitution than the one proposed by the DPP. But the proposals outlined by Lien on Friday -- government restructuring, halving the number of seats in the Legislative Yuan, lowering the minimum voting age to 18 -- were not as detailed as the DPP's blueprint, although they seemed to copy the DPP on several points.

The constitution issue is the latest in a series of copycat moves by the Lien camp. His campaign team released a white paper on women's policy on Friday -- only to be accused by the head of DPP's women's department of copying that party's white paper from the 2000 presidential election.

Earlier, the pan-blue camp made such an abrupt U-turn on the referendum issue -- from strong opposition to all-out support -- it's surprising that its supporters didn't develop a case of whiplash. Of course, one might wonder why the proposed referendum bill is still stuck in the Legislative Yuan now that the pan-blue camp is supporting it.

After US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said that the US did not think a referendum on World Health Organization (WHO) participation by Taiwan would be helpful to Taipei's cause, Lien -- perhaps to show he truly supported the people's right to hold referendums -- said no other country should interfere with such rights. Yet when Chen was accused of upsetting the US by indicating that he would not bow to Washington's pressure on issues such as a national referendum, Lien said the government should avoid hurting US-Taiwan relations.

Lien appears so desperate to win next year -- and remove the blot on his copybook from leading the KMT into complete humiliation in the last presidential election -- he's willing to say anything. The pan-blue camp's shifting back and forth on so many issues is enough to make observers seasick.

The voters don't want to hear platitudes and promises -- they have had enough of those. What they want is for both Chen and Lien to put some forth substantive plans and clearly developed policy proposals.

A new constitution to reflect reality

By the Liberty Times editorial

Secretary-general of the Presi-dential Office Chiou I-jen recently gave an explanation for President Chen Shui-bian's proposal for a new constitution, pointing out that among the 175 articles in the Constitution, as many as 116 articles, or 65 percent, need to be amended.

Amendments on such a massive scale could of course be depicted as writing an entirely new constitution. However, Chu's explanation is not concise enough. A more precise explanation is as follows: A five-branch government supposedly exists under the Constitution. The Constitution differs not only from other constitutions that tend to regulate three-branch governments, but also from the original Constitution drafted by Sun Yat-sen.

Despite extensive amendments that were made following compromise after compromise, the Constitution remains the source of much chaos within the central government. Therefore it should be amended to a constitution with a more efficient three-branch government. Since the amendments entail fundamental structural and conceptual changes, the resulting product should of course be referred to as a new constitution.

The inefficiency of the government is due primarily to three factors: the inability of legislative representatives to voice and reflect the popular will; the inability to resolve conflicts between the legislative and executive branches of the government in a rational manner; and the confusing division of executive powers between the president and the premier.

The only way out is to write a new framework for the Constitution to deal with these problems and improve the government's efficiency.

Representative political participation is often inadequate in reflecting the majority view. Elected officials are supposed to represent the views of the voters in their voting districts when they participate in legislative decisions.

However, after an election, it is difficult for the voters to control the behavior of their representatives and lawmakers or elected officials who often vote or propose bills based on their own views, rather than those of the voters.

Better legislative representatives may give some thought to national interests. Others base their votes on the interests of their political parties or factions, seriously diverging from the real popular will. Such conduct has become commonplace in this country.

The current electoral system, under which each district elects multiple seats, have prompted legislative representatives to represent only small minorities within their districts. Exactly who and where are these voters are, not even the representatives seem to know. So, with very few exceptions, lawmakers can easily ignore the will of the voters. Under the circumstances, democracy sometimes makes it possible for lawmakers to act as they please.

Even when the lawmakers can accurately reflect the views of the voters, the legislative majority does not always reflect the views of the majority of the voters. For example, if every district elects only one representative, then whoever is elected may have won only slightly more than 50 percent of the votes. This means that half of all the lawmakers may represent only a quarter of the voters. The so-called congressional majority, theoretically, does not always represent the majority view.

This is without taking into account the backdrop of party politics. Even if every political party adopts a democratic deci-sionmaking process, a little more than half of the party's lawmakers could decide how all of the party's lawmakers should vote. In the end, the so-called legislative majority represents only one-eighth of the voters, straying even further from the real popular will.

If political parties do not operate in a democratic manner, and a couple of parties bond into a larger group, or if a small minority of people or even one single person monopolizes power within an authoritarian party, the legislative majority would drift still further from the will of the people.

These flaws have led many countries to use mechanisms such as referendums and initiative rights. This is why Taiwan is contemplating referendums. However, referendums also have serious flaws, such as a lack of consistency in policymaking.

A major contribution of the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow was proving that policies made by a majority vote results in a contradictory outcome every time. For example, if referendums were held simultaneously on issues A, B and C, B could win. But if the choice is only between A and C, C might win. Therefore it is difficult to detect what the people really want, creating much conflict about policies. The best way of resolving such conflicts is with a three-branch and presidential form of government.

Under the presidential form of government, the legislative branch is responsible for drafting applicable general policies for the long term, which are the laws of the country. Since laws are applied on a long-term basis once enacted, the legislative representatives are less likely to be manipulated by individuals or a small minority. As for policies that may involve short-term interests, they are left up to the executive branch, which is led by the president, giving policy implementation more consistency and efficiency.

Let us use the US as an example. If the president felt that a congressional decision is inappropriate, he or she can veto the bill. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives pass the bill with a two-thirds majority, then the president must accept their decision. However, when more than two-thirds of the members of both houses hold a different opinion, the president gets to call the shots.

This design could avoid the shortcomings of representative politics and set clear boundaries for the division of power between the president and Congress, allowing the two powers to check and balance each other. It is indeed a worthy example.

In contrast, a small number of lawmakers in the Legislative Yuan can interfere with the operation of executive power. Some of them could even deliberately paralyze the government as part of party bickering and rivalry.

Under the circumstances, we should move toward the establishment of a presidential form of government, so that the central government can reflect the real popular will, as well as attain efficiency.

In addition, the current "co-habitation" form of government is another source of chaos. The premier is appointed by the president, which of course means that the president has the power to command the premier. However, because the Constitution had been repeatedly amended, blurring the original intent, some people often argue that the president should not be allowed to interfere with policy implementation, creating difficulties for the Executive Yuan as well as for the Presidential Office.

From this perspective, a new constitution that clearly adopts the presidential form of government is needed. The Constitution should not be allowed to continue in its fragmented condition.

Sovereignty already exists

James Wang highlights some very pertinent points in his article ("Paal doesn't understand the TRA," Oct. 8, page 8). His comments also give rise to other issues which require urgent debate.

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is a product of its time, which in many ways is useful, but is also somewhat outdated especially when coupled with the "one China" doctrine.

In order for the Taiwanese to properly understand its present position, a number of anomalies need to be addressed.

First, the issue of sovereignty, which has two elements: Taiwan is irrefutably a bona-fide sovereign state which meets all the prescribed requirements laid down in international law. The question of sovereignty is not affected by the dispute regarding the Republic of China's occupation of Taiwan after World War II.

Even if it is argued that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was an occupying power with questionable legitimacy, it does not detract from the proposition that today there are in fact two "Chinas" in existence. Notwithstanding recognition, determined by political and more importantly economic factors, it is also an indisputable fact that the Beijing regime exercises zero jurisdiction over Taiwan and never has.

The Taiwanese people's perception of their homeland has been fundamentally skewed by their forced KMT indoctrination over the past 50 years. It is clear that from the ethnic cleansing of the local leadership, begun on Feb. 28 1947, the KMT imposed an oppressive and repressive system of government and education, which still has profound effects on the present electorate.

That the Democratic Progressive Party is only celebrating its 17th anniversary is ample evidence of such persecution. However, given the guidance of past "insiders" such as former president Lee Teng-hui, the Taiwan Solidarity Union and the current administration, one hopes that the people will be able to overcome their in-grained prejudices and ignorance resulting from decades of KMT propaganda.

With the recent emancipation of Taiwanese society, one also hopes that the electorate will not be deceived by the nonsensical policies of the alliance between the KMT and the People First Party.

This includes seeing through blatantly transparent and unpatriotic maneuvers to stall legislation and subsequently lay blame on the hamstrung government, the totally unfounded accusations regarding the economy which, in fact, is performing remarkably well in the current circumstances and the obvious duplicity of the re-unified leadership to achieve short-term gains.

It is also important for the Taiwanese to learn from the so-called "opening" of China. The Chinese Communist Party is still an elitist clique mired in corruption which wantonly mistreats its labor force and tramples over a myriad of human rights. Champions of cross-strait investment are party to these abuses or are self-servers at best.

The lessons of Taiwan's autocratic past and the disastrous policies of today's Hong Kong should also provide more than enough evidence to dissuade voters from following misguided and antiquated notions of unification.

It is time for the Taiwanese to stand up and assert a sovereignty that already exists. There is no need to "claim" independence from anyone, nor is it necessary to "declare" an independence already in operation.

True freedom can only be attained by facing reality and rectifying the country's name and constitution to reflect the aspirations of the the Taiwanese people. This would be a genuine expression of patriotism and self-determination and when realized, it would be an accomplishment that would be criminal for the UN and the international community to ignore.

David Kinsella

Keelung