Blue camp's Referendum Law isn't democratic

By Chien Lin Hue-Jyun

On Nov. 27, an antidemocratic scene took place at the Legislative Yuan, with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) playing a leading role, and with only bit parts played by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). When the blue camp used their legislative majority to dominate the drafting of the Referendum Law, the green camp was willing but not able to fight back.

Before the show, the KMT and the PFP claimed that there would be no restrictions on the bill, and the DPP and the TSU were filled with not only anticipation but also concern about this.

But the true colors of the blue camp were revealed when the legislative process began. Originally, the green camp thought that the blue camp would base its version of the bill on either DPP Legislator Trong Chai's version or the TSU's -- either of which would have allowed the people to vote on changes to the country's name, flag and territory. This would have presented the ruling party with a dilemma as to whether they should support such a bill, which may have led to Taiwanese independence. The result proved that the blue camp didn't have the guts to pass a law without restrictions.

To be blunt, the blue camp lacked respect for the ideal of "people being their own masters". Clearly, the KMT and the PFP shrank while Taiwan was pushing its democratic development forward. When the bill was put to a vote, the two parties violated their "no restrictions" principle, and completely deceived the people. They were so timid that they did not even have the courage to push President Chen Shui-bian to declare his stance.

Article 17 of the Constitution states that "the people shall have the right of election, recall, initiative and referendum." However, according to the Referendum Law, the people do not have the right to initiate a referendum concerning constitutional amendments, and can only vote on amendments proposed by the legislature. The people's rights were seriously infringed upon.

In addition, the KMT and the PFP established a Referendum Review Committee -- formed by the head of the Central Election Committee and representatives from all political parties according to their representation in the legislature -- which will be responsible for deciding whether a referendum proposed by the people can be voted on by the people.

I cannot think of any reason why the blue camp would think that political parties have the right to veto any referendum proposal that reaches a signatory threshold, and to judge whether the people should be allowed to have a referendum regarding their rights.

What would the committee do if a sufficient number of people signed a referendum proposal to abolish the committee? Would they pass the proposal? Or would they block it? Who should review the case if the members block it?

Therefore, I believe that the Referendum Law, which was passed in accordance with the ideologies of the KMT and the PFP, is in fact an antidemocratic law.

It is a law designed to maintain the legislators' power, and under it the people are unable to challenge the authority of the legislature or the political parties.

Who if not the people is qualified to make decisions on the status of the nation?

The KMT and PFP act as if the people of the country are not mature enough to rationally decide their fate; as if they are stupid and inferior. Is this really acceptable to the people? By making restrictions on referendums, aren't the vicious blue-camp legislators bullying the people?

Chien Lin Hue-jyun is a TSU legislator.

Cabinet says referendum is legitimate

SUPPORT: The Executive Yuan came out behind President Chen's call for a `defensive' vote, saying China was threatening the nation's security

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

It is legitimate for President Chen Shui-bian to initiate a "defensive referendum" on sovereignty on March 20 as Beijing has never stopped its intimidation of Taiwan, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung said yesterday.

"It is Beijing that wants to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait not us," Lin said. "While we're already an independent sovereign state, the `defensive referendum' doesn't have anything to do with our independence or unification but with safeguarding national security and sovereignty.

"Most of the people are so used to having Beijing set the deadline and call the shots, why it is not the other way around?" Lin asked.

"Such a negotiation model puts us in a bad position and I don't think it's fair to call it provocative if we change things around," Lin told reporters in response to US comments on the referendum.

Until the defensive referendum is held, Lin said, the Cabinet welcomes any suggestion regarding potential topics of the referendum.

"We're open to all kinds of questions such as the `one China, two system' policy or China's military buildup," he said. "We're confident that the US government understands and respects the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government's efforts to deepen democracy and let its people decide their own future via a popular vote."

Premier Yu Shyi-kun later told reporters that Chen personally told him on Monday that the defensive referendum can consider such a topic as China's military buildup.

"An appropriate topic for next year's `defensive referendum' should take into account the political and social situation when the referendum is held," Yu said.

Accenting that a "defensive referendum" has many functions, Yu said that the government will honor Chen's "five noes" while holding one.

"While China's political and military threats remain obvious, we'll honor Chen's `five noes' pledge and continue to offer goodwill gestures to China," Lin said.

The "five noes" refer to: no to declaring independence; no to changing Taiwan's formal name from the Republic of China; no to enshrining "state-to-state" in the Constitution; no to endorsing a referendum on formal independence; and no to abolishing either the National Reunification Council or the National Reunification Guidelines.

The "five noes," however, are on condition that China has no intention of using military force against Taiwan.

Under its "one China" policy, Beijing is suppressing Taiwan in three major areas: politics, defense and the economy, Lin said.

"On the political front, it continues to deny our sovereignty and belittle our status, including pressuring us to change our name in the World Trade Organization (WTO), blocking our bid to enter the World Health Organization (WHO) and preventing us from signing the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)," Lin said, adding that Taiwan is a member of 19 out of the world's some 6,000 international organizations.

It has also intimidated our diplomatic allies to switch ties, causing the number of the nation's diplomatic allies to drop from 32 in 1971 when the nation withdrew from the UN to 27.

On the military front, the Chinese regime has continued to increase its military buildup against Taiwan at a speed of 50 to 70 missiles every year.

To isolate the nation economically, Lin said China has warned countries suchh as the US, Japan and Singapore against signing free-trade agreements with the nation.

MND says president did not reveal classified information

CNA , TAIPEI

President Chen Shui-bian did not reveal secret intelligence when he recently announced the number of Beijing's missiles aimed at Taiwan because the information was not classified, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) said yesterday.

"China's Second Artillery Force has deployed 100 strategic guided missiles and 500-plus tactical guided missiles aimed at Taiwan," defense ministry spokesman Major General Huang Suey-sheng confirmed at a regular news briefing.

Huang was responding to questions from reporters on whether Chen had illegally disclosed military intelligence when he said at a public rally on Sunday that Beijing's deployment of 496 guided missiles aimed at Taiwan was sufficient reason for a "defensive referendum" to be called on the day of the upcoming presidential election.

As the president is the armed forces' commander-in-chief, Huang said, the defense ministry is not in a position to elaborate on any of Chen's comments.

Nevertheless, Huang said China's missile deployment against Taiwan is not a military secret.

In an Oct. 8 report to the Legislative Yuan on the defense ministry's operations, Huang said, lawmakers were told that China's Second Artillery Force had deployed about 100 strategic missiles and 500-plus tactical missiles in the provinces of Guangdong, Jiangxi and Fujian which were aimed at Taiwan.

According to Huang, the Second Artillery Force is an independent military arm and does not belong to any branch of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The Second Artillery Force now has eight regiment-level bases, manned by more than 130,000 service members, Huang said.

He further said the defense ministry has clear definitions and stringent regulations concerning military secrets and relevant intelligence of various kinds.

Article 17 of the newly passed Referendum Law empowers the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues in the event of an external threat. The threat which could trigger such a poll, dubbed a "defensive referendum," is tacitly seen as coming from China.

Huang further said the MND currently has no plans to educate members of the armed forces' rank and file on referendums even though the Legislative Yuan has recently passed the referendum bill into law.

"Chukuang Day" -- the day regularly reserved for education in the military each week -- has not been used to give lessons about referendums, Huang said.

Huang said that even if a referendum were held tomorrow, the armed forces would maintain norms in combat training and preparedness.

He added that the defense ministry is constantly monitoring the movements of the PLA Army and that it has found that the PLA has not made any unusual moves despite Chinese officials' saber rattling over the legislature's passage of the referendum bill last Thursday.

"We have not detected any abnormal movement of Chinese troops in recent weeks," Huang said, adding that the PLA is only conducting routine training activities at the moment.

On questions of whether Chen 's advocacy recently of a "defensive" referendum has caused any alterations in military deployments on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, Huang said that this was a political issue and that he is not supposed to comment on political issues of any kind.

On another question about whether the defense ministry would go along with the notion of "barracks voting," or allowing men and women in uniform to cast their referendum ballots at the barracks, Huang said this was an issue for the Ministry of the Interior to decide, and not the defense ministry.

Presidential Office mum on contact with US official

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

The Presidential Office refused to comment yesterday on whether President Chen Shui-bian had recently met a US government official to discuss Washington's concerns over Chen's plan for a "defensive referendum."

A source from the Presidential Office said communications between Taiwan and the US remain smooth.

"If there was any official from Washington, we believe that it should be regarded as a kind of regular communication," the source said.

Familiar response

The source said that the reaction of the US government to the president's defensive referendum was similar to its initial reaction to Chen's announcement of pushing for a new constitution.

"They just expect to precisely understand what the president's intention is and what will be the concrete action of Taiwan's government," the source said.

According to media reports from Washington yesterday, James Moriarty, a special assistant to US President George W. Bush and senior director for Asian affairs, had visited Taiwan in the past few days and met Chen at the Presidential Office.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and American Institute in Taiwan denied the report.

A senior official at the Presidential Office told the Taipei Times he couldn't comment on the matter.

Meanwhile, Joseph Wu, deputy secretary-general to the president, reaffirmed that Chen and the government maintain the "five-noes" promise made during Chen's inauguration speech, adding that the defensive referendum will not address reunification or independence.

"Those Taiwan offices of foreign news agencies have delivered wrong information by describing President Chen's defensive referendum as an independence referendum," Wu said. "We want to reaffirm that the president's `five noes' remain unchanged and any development of Taiwan's democracy should not be defined simply as a reunification or independence move," he said.

Wu said the president will choose an appropriate time to explain the meaning of his defensive referendum and urged the international community not to be misled by the pan-blue camp.

"No matter what policy the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has announced, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] and the People First Party [PFP] alliance described it as a move toward independence," Wu said.

"This is just like Beijing always accusing Taiwan of plotting to realize independence every time the country makes achievements in democratic reform," he said.

Popular support

"While over 60 percent of Taiwan's people in recent polls showed their support for the president's idea of a new constitution and realizing a referendum mechanism, even the opposition alliance made a U-turn to follow the president's step," Wu said.

"We hope that China, especially Beijing's leaders, squarely faces Taiwan's real situation and does not take any wrong action by relying on biased information."

In a campaign speech Saturday, Chen announced that, during the March 20 presidential election, he plans to hold a "defensive referendum" as authorized under the newly passed Referendum Law.

Noting the danger posed by China's 496 missiles targeting Taiwan, Chen said that, as head of state, he has the obligation to defend the nation's sovereignty. He said the defensive referendum is a tool to unite Taiwanese and demonstrate the will of the country's 23 million people.

Don't vote on independence: US

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

The US, in its first reaction to President Chen Shui-bian's plan for a "defensive referendum," said on Monday it would oppose any such referendum if it touched on the topic of independence for Taiwan.

"We would be opposed to any referenda that would change Taiwan's status or move toward independence," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters in Washington.

"We oppose any attempt by either side to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait," he said. "We also urge both sides to refrain from action or statements that increase tensions or make dialogue more difficult to achieve."

Boucher's statement reflects nervousness on the part of George W. Bush's administration that Chen's push for a referendum and a new constitution could spark increased tensions at a time when US-China relations are the best they have been since before the Tiananmen massacre, and when Washington is reliant on Beijing's cooperation in the Korean Peninsula, the war on terrorism and Iraq.

Next week's trip to Washington by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in which Wen is expected to make Taiwan a main point of discussion, has added to the urgency in the US Capitol.

Nevertheless, the administration has given no indication that recent events have changed its strong support for Taiwan. Officials in recent weeks have reiterated Washington's opposition to the use of force in the Taiwan Strait by China and have indicated that the US would be prepared, if necessary, to respond on Taiwan's side if Beijing resorted to military action.

In opposing a status-changing referendum, Boucher reminded Chen of his inauguration pledge not to declare independence, change Taiwan's name, add "state-to-state" wording to the Constitution or promote a referendum to change the status quo on independence or unification.

"We appreciate President Chen's pledge in 2000 and his subsequent reaffirmation of it, and we take it very seriously," Boucher said.

He added that cross-strait dialogue is "essential to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait area."

Boucher's comments came as China warned Chen against holding the defensive vote, which it described as an "independence referendum."

An article in the official China Daily on Tuesday quoted "researchers on cross-straits studies" as accusing Chen of "starting an ill-considered attempt to initiate an independence referendum next year."

The story quoted Mu Xiankui of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences as saying that Chen "seems to be bent on pushing ahead with his separatist scheme by plotting to call the independence vote ... Choosing independence means the choice of war."

The article also cited the Cairo Declaration signed by the US, China and Britain on Dec. 1, 1943, in which Beijing demanded all of Japan's previously occupied territories, including Taiwan, be returned to China.

The article said the declaration "provided effective legal evidence" that Taiwan was part of China under international law.

Hsieh making mockery of judiciary

Former New Party legislator Hsieh Chi-ta is back. For a fugitive who had been on the run, she arrived with a bang, showing no remorse for the injuries she inflicted on the target of her libel -- former first lady Tseng Wen-hui.

Contrary to the general public's impression of how fugitives -- at least those with a shred of conscience and shame -- generally behave in front of TV cameras, Hsieh gave a press conference at the airport, during which she insisted once again that not only had she been wrongfully convicted but that Tseng had indeed tried to flee to New York with US$85 million in cash stuffed into 54 suitcases right after the KMT lost the presidential election in 2000.

Hsieh is a textbook example of how hatred can blind a person to the point of betraying long-held values without the slightest sense of regret.

Hsieh owes everyone a big apology. As a former lawmaker and former judge, trained and paid with taxpayers' money, she more than anyone should know how bad an example she set by fleeing Taiwan to escape punishment. There is a good chance that a large majority of criminals serving prison sentences, if not all of them, think they do not deserve what they got.

If everyone went on the run like Hsieh, what would happen to our judicial system? By doing what she did, how different is Hsieh from mob bosses and common crooks who escape to China, which has for all practical purposes turned into a haven for thugs from Taiwan?

Whatever bones Hsieh may have to pick with her guilty verdict, she should have sought redress within the judicial system, such as by filing for an appeal.

When Hsieh finally did return, she continued to make the same erroneous allegations against Tseng, even though a court had already found her guilty of libel. The disrespect and contempt for the judicial system underlying her conduct should be enough to make all her former law professors live in shame for failing to provide her better legal training.

As for the VCDs and the book that Hsieh is releasing to continue her libelous attacks against Tseng, since these attacks have been proven to constitute criminal libel, Tseng should be entitled to seek an injunction from the courts against the release of such materials. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, since Hsieh's speech has been ruled to fall outside the scope of free speech. Rather, it is an issue of protecting the rights and interests of the victim -- Tseng.

If all perpetrators of crimes could continue to hurt their victims this way, the judicial system would be rendered meaningless.

Even more laughable is the way Hsieh tried to portray herself as a martyr, depicting herself as a political prisoner. Political prisoners who gave their lives to the dissident movement during the White Terror are rolling over in their graves in disgust.

The truth of the matter is that Hsieh has no proof of her allegation against Tseng, which was why she was found guilty of libel. Hsieh is not being politically persecuted for anything. Anyone who pays attention to this case knows that Hsieh, along with former New Party legislator Elmer Fung, first made the libelous allegation against Tseng after the presidential election in 2000 during an out-of-control protest against then KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui. Hsieh relied on hearsay from others when she made the allegation, as she couldn't have had the chance to verify her allegation. Whatever shred of supposed evidence she managed to dig up later was for the sole purpose of covering her own behind. The credibility of such evidence speaks for itself.

Our only wish is that this entire charade is not a publicity stunt, or a prelude for Hsieh's participation in the next legislative election.

Actions speak loudest

The recent controversy over the Special Report VCD series reveals a lot about the media. What is more revealing is how the pan-blue camp has reacted to the VCD, and how it has become another occasion for them to show their true colors.

In the US, lampooning of the president and other politicians by talk show hosts is so common that one would think it was required by law. Yet there is never any controversy. Presidential candidates will show up for a good-natured interview with the same hosts who tell jokes about them almost every night.

However, people of a certain political tint in Taiwan seem to be saying that they ought not be satirized.

What they are really trying to say is that people ought not be allowed to satirize pan-blue politicians.

On the other hand, if people want to satirize pan-green politicians, they are welcomed and encouraged. In most cases, pan-blue politicians will be leading the charge.

As former president Lee Teng-hui and others have astutely pointed out, the pan-blues are stuck with a mentality that is anachronistic, feudalistic and undemocratic.

Premier Yu Shyi-kun made the same observation when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan suggested that Chen Chien-jen, Taiwan's representative in the US, did not show enough respect or deference to him. And the recent fracas over Special Report has confirmed the imperial mentality of Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong.

Like emperors, they will not tolerate anything negative said about them, regardless of whether there is any factual basis to what is said. Although Chen Chien-jen was acting on behalf of President Chen Shui-bian and the people of Taiwan, Lien felt it more important for Chen Chien-jen to show deference to a self-appointed emperor than to a president who was popularly elected.

Prince Soong also knows the proper protocol in dealing with his subjects. If someone displeases a member of the imperial circle, then consequences will follow. The controversy created by Soong and his cronies regarding the Special Report series is an example of this. This is the standard procedure of feudal lords.

And this seems to be happening more frequently. Pan-blue supporters have threatened or attacked Contemporary Monthly editor Chin Heng-wei, political commentator Cao Chang-ching and most recently the actors in Special Report.

It is no coincidence that the attackers have been pan-blue supporters. They learn from their masters.

The pan-blues pay only lip service to democracy and freedom, while practicing their old ways of intimidation and violence against critics and dissenters.

Actions speak louder than words.

Among the main issues in the upcoming election is the deepening of the nation's democracy through referendums and creating a new constitution. Despite the blindness that emperors have always had toward the needs of their subjects, the pan-blues have realized that they need something to trick voters. This would explain their policy U-turn on referendums and a new constitution.

Voters can spot this trick by observing how the pan-blues react to democratic issues such as freedom of speech. Voters will see that the blues' belief in democracy extends only as far as what will increase their power. Witnessing such a violent reaction toward a VCD, and then comparing this with how Chen has dealt with three and a half years of nonstop abuse, one can clearly see who the mandarins are, and who can be called democrats.

Kevin Hsu

New Jersey