Demanding real power in right of referendum

By Taipei Society

Sunday, Dec 07, 2003,Page 8

The Referendum Law was passed by the Legislature on Nov. 27. On the surface, the law deepens Taiwan's democracy. In reality, however, it is the product of political scheming and one political party's only looking after its own interests. The legislation not only restricts people's political rights, but it also grants the legislative branch more power.

The following three statements represent the Taipei Society's stand on the issue:

First, we oppose the law because it deprives the people of their right to initiate and hold referendums on major national issues. According to the version of the law passed by the Legislature, any constitutional issue must be reviewed by the Legislature and the National Assembly before the people can cast their votes in a referendum. People can only vote on amendments to the Constitution and cannot directly initiate a referendum on constitutional issues.

Based on the law, the right to decide on issues vital to the country, such as the national flag, title, territory or the number of seats in the Legislature, are monopolized by the Legislature and the assembly. People are left with no way to have their say.

The design of the law therefore runs counter to its original purpose. Under the new law, people cannot do anything about a sluggish and incapable Legislature, one that fails to respect public opinion. It also makes it impossible for the people to use their right to initiate referendums, as protected by the Constitution.

Second, we think that the many years of ferocious contention among parties are the result of their disagreement over national identity. Ideas about the country's territory and sovereignty constitute the major difference between the blue and green camps. The territory claimed by the blue camp is similar to that claimed by China, except for the former's inclusion of Mongolia. The territory claimed by the green camp is Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.

The ill-natured battle among parties will not stop unless they settle their differences concerning national identity.

The Legislature is the main battlefield for political parties, and it will be impossible to resolve the national identity crisis there. Only a referendum in which people can decide on the issues of national territory, title and flag can resolve the identity crisis.

However, the newly-passed law deprives the people of such rights, thus leaving the question of national identity suspended in mid-air. The battles fought among parties will be endless, and it is not likely that Taiwanese democracy will be deepened.

Third, the new legislation stipulates that a review committee decide whether a referendum initiated through a signature drive can be held. Members of the committee, however, are selected in proportion to each party's representation in the Legislature. This rule contains three grave mistakes:

One, the review committee will become another battlefield for the contention among parties, again at the expense of the people's rights.

Two, voting on a referendum is a form of direct democracy, but party representatives will now decide whether a referendum will be held. Indirect democracy thus overrides direct democracsy and deprives the people of their right to initiate and hold a referendum.

Three, the review committee holds ultimate power over the agenda. This mechanism violates democratic procedure and weakens the foundations of democracy.

Based on these three concerns, we call upon the general public to take back their political rights from political parties and politicians. We want, in its entirety, the right to initiate and hold a referendum. We want a referendum law that fully reflects direct democracy.

Editorial: Soong must come clean to public

The Taipei District Prosecutors' Office Friday questioned People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong for almost six hours over his role in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance case. We will have to wait, however, for a decision by prosecutors as to whether they will reopen the case, which was closed when the prosecutors' office decided not to prosecute Soong in January 2001.

During a press conference after he was questioned, Soong on the one hand passed the buck to former president Lee Teng-hui and on the other hand claimed that he is not clear about the details of the case because his finances have always been managed by his sister-in-law Chen Pi-yun. He also continued to challenge Lee, who was the chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during Soong's term as the party's secretary-general, to a confrontation in court.

In other words, Soong's latest explanation of the case was the same old tune that he has been playing for the past three years, although it was perhaps a bit more dramatic this time. But the world still hasn't gotten any clear answers.

Today, Soong is a vice presidential candidate, nominated by the KMT and the PFP. It is necessary for him to clarify his role in the case, instead of repeatedly telling us how deeply his family members have suffered from the accusations against him. We can understand the pain of the Soong family over the past few years, but if Soong quickly clears up all doubts about the case, maybe the suffering of his family members can end sooner.

People have been wondering why a donation of NT$100 million from Chen You-hao, a former chairman of the Tuntex Group, to the KMT in October 1997, was divided into three sums and transferred to Soong's bank account, Chen's bank account and the US bank account of Soong's son's, Allen Soong. Why did the sum transferred to Allen Soong come from 20 different dummy accounts?

Furthermore, when the scandal first broke, James Soong said that none of his family members owned any property in Hawaii. It was then discovered that his son owned five houses in the US, and that he already owned these houses when he was a student at the University of California at Berkeley. In response to questions from the media, Allen Soong said the money was a gift from his parents, while his wife later said that Allen Soong had earned the money himself. Why all the discrepancies and contradictions?

Third, why didn't James Soong return to the KMT the NT$240 million that was in his bank account when he discontinued his KMT membership in July 1999? Why did he wait until prosecutors requested that the Ministry of Finance turn over materials from an audit of his accounts on December 26 that year?

Only days later did Soong hurriedly deposit the money with the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office, where the money remains to this day. What are his reasons for such behavior, which is clearly a matter of criminal misappropriation?

Frankly speaking, the burden to prove whether Lee authorized Soong to set up accounts for the KMT secretary-general at the Bank of Taipei and Chung Hsing Bills Finance should rest with Soong. Lee has already unambiguously told prosecutors that he never issued such an authorization to Soong.

If Lee has his facts mixed up, the KMT, which today fully supports Soong, should be able to produce from its archives concrete evidence in support of Soong.

The issue that concerns voters is the question of Soong's ethics and integrity, not that the KMT has withdrawn its accusations against Soong or that the court has decided not to prosecute. The best thing Soong could do would be to start from the beginning and provide explanations for every issue that the public wants clarified.

Independence not topic of vote: Chen

SHOW OF FEELING: While the president is expected to announce today the topic of the March `defensive referendum,' he gave hints to US reporters Friday

NY TIMES NEWS SEVICE , TAIPEI

Sunday, Dec 07, 2003,Page 1

"In 1962, the US faced the 13 alarming days of the Cuban missile crisis. With 496 ballistic missiles aimed at the 23 million people of Taiwan, every day for us is an alarming day."

－Chen Shui-bian, president

President Chen Shui-bian said in an interview on Friday that he planned a referendum next March calling on China to withdraw ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan and demanding that China renounce the use of force against the nation.

In the interview, Chen said that the planned referendum would not involve independence, the touchiest issue from the perspective of China. But Beijing has expressed alarm about the precedent of holding any plebiscites on sensitive political topics.

Chen said in the interview that he will consider cancelling the referendum if China has responded with good-will to his calls.

On Wednesday, senior Chinese military officers publicly warned that Taiwan was facing an "abyss of war" and said that China was willing to accept boycotts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, reduced foreign investment and military casualties to prevent Taiwan from using a referendum to advance the cause of independence.

Chen contended that a referendum would help make people here and countries around the world more aware of what he described as an imminent and growing military threat from China, and that this would reduce the risk of a conflict. "Some argue that holding such a defensive referendum might send our children to the front line," he said. "In fact, the opposite is true."

Chen is seeking re-election and his race with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate, Lien Chan is too close to call.

Chen said that he had informed the US of his plans for the referendum, and he appealed for support on the grounds that Taiwan's democratic development needed strong US backing.

The State Department has bluntly discouraged Chen from holding a referendum on independence issues. But the administration has yet to respond to his new initiative to focus the referendum on China's military posture, especially as the precise wording has not yet been set.

In an interview late Friday morning, Chen devoted more than an hour to explaining his plans for the referendum. He said that the question posed on ballots "could be for the 23 million people of Taiwan to demand that China immediately withdraw the missiles targeting Taiwan and openly renounce the use of force against Taiwan."

Investing some of the extra money available from a booming economy, China has rapidly increased its arsenal of ballistic missiles and positioned many of them in easy striking range of Taiwan.

Although US and Taiwanese experts believe the missiles to be conventionally armed, Chen compared the danger they posed to Taiwan with the threat faced by the US during the Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union built missile storage and launching facilities in Cuba that could have been used for a nuclear-tipped arsenal.

"In 1962, the US faced the 13 alarming days of the Cuban missile crisis," he said. "With 496 ballistic missiles aimed at the 23 million people of Taiwan, every day for us is an alarming day."

Chen repeatedly spoke of Taiwan's struggle to build a full democracy and called the referendum a historic first for Taiwan. He pointed out that efforts to bring democratic institutions to the island, suppressed for decades under martial law, were always met with opposition from China and the then ruling KMT.

"The holding of a referendum is a milestone in our democratic consolidation and the deepening of Taiwan's democracy," he said.

Lien criticized Chen in a separate interview Friday, saying that "this is no time for our government to provoke the Chinese communists on the mainland and create a situation of tension that will endanger the 23 million people on this island."

Advocates of independence have for years pressed for referendums as a way to bypass constitutional barriers to legal independence. After months of discussion this autumn, the legislature passed a bill mostly written by the KMT that severely limited the ability of the president to call a referendum except when the country is "facing an external threat which may jeopardize national sovereignty."

Chen said that the missiles, which were also protested in rallies across Taiwan last year, posed just such a threat. Lien said that his party disagreed and had been surprised that Chen was moving so swiftly to make use of the clause, which the KMT had only supported in the legislature as a last resort in a genuine crisis.

"We have a sense of betrayal," Lien said.

Chen asserted that personal ambition was not a factor in his decision.

"I'm already a president and it doesn't make a big difference to me whether I serve for one term or two terms," he said. "A referendum represents a concept and belief that I have pursued throughout my more-than-20-year political career. It is a universal value and a basic human right."

Stop glossing over China's threat

By the Liberty Times editorial

Sunday, Dec 07, 2003,Page 8

`Certain blue-camp legislators do not care about the safety of the nation and its people, nor do they make an effort to understand the true nature of the Chinese threat.'

President Chen Shui-bian recently said that China's People's Liberation Army has deployed 496 missiles in Guangdong, Jiangxi and Fujian provinces to threaten Taiwan.

His suggestion that a defensive referendum be held together with the presidential election on March 20 has triggered severe criticism from the pan-blue camp. Pan-blue legislators also questioned the president's divulging the exact number of missiles deployed against Taiwan, saying that it was an act of "leaking state secrets."

Such a paradoxical statement applies pro-China thinking to cover up the fact that China is stepping up its military presence in the Taiwan Strait. We wonder which country is referred to when pan-blue leaders and lawmakers accuse Chen of leaking "state secrets."

That China's submarines and missiles pose a threat in the Taiwan Strait is a longstanding fact known to all. As head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces, Chen has the responsibility and obligation to clearly inform the people of Taiwan and the international community about the enemy's threat to the nation.

With this information, the people will not misjudge the situation and blindly believe that China no longer poses a threat, or drop their guard to allow enemies to approach our doorstep without our having any sense of crisis.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iraqi troops arrived at the Kuwaiti royal palace, the Kuwaiti people saw nothing unusual in their presence, thinking Iraq was using Kuwaiti land to conduct a military drill. Iraqi troops therefore easily took cities and seized other territory. When it was too late to do anything, Kuwaitis realized they had been plunged into misery and suffering.

This is a good lesson for the people of Taiwan.

We also have to ask why the pan-blue camp purposely glosses over China's military threat. Why did they turn around to attack their own leader when they should have denounced China's armed threat?

Moreover, the Ministry of National Defense reported in a legislative meeting in October that Beijing is aiming nearly 500 missiles at Taiwan. The number disclosed by the president, 496 missiles, is no secret at all, yet the pan-blue camp makes an issue of it.

Did it do so simply for the sake of opposing him?

China has used the rapid growth of its military strength in recent years to attack and isolate Taiwan diplomatically and it has also used every possible means to put pressure on Taiwan's international space and visibility. Even more seriously, Beijing has vowed not to give up the option of armed invasion of Taiwan. To accomplish its goal of unifying China and "liberating" Taiwan, Beijing has tried to threaten Taipei with pen and sword, and used commerce to put political pressure on Taiwan.

China's old unification tricks, along with missiles and submarines, and warfare strategies such as "unlimited war" and asymmetrical warfare, pose immediate threats to Taiwan.

Under such circumstances, how can a responsible head of state act like an ostrich and intentionally ignore or avoid the facts?

Certain blue-camp legislators do not care about the safety of the nation and its people, nor do they make an effort to understand the true nature of the Chinese threat. Instead, they attack the president by accusing him of leaking confidential information. Their intentions are indeed questionable. No wonder the people are dissatisfied with the Legislature's performance.

Now, there is the Referendum Law. Following repeated amendments to the Constitution in an effort to accommodate reality, it has become fragmented and out of touch with reality and public opinion. To endow the people with the right to initiate new laws outside the current framework, the Democratic Progressive Party has pushed for a referendum law. Their courage and will power deserve our praise. However, due to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) and the People First Party's legislative majority, with the help of hijacked independent legislators, the newly passed blue-camp version of the Referendum Law is a wicked law that prevents the people from launching referendums.

Anyone with the most basic legal or democratic sense knows that none of the referendum laws of other countries is as ridiculous as Taiwan's, which stipulates that all referendum proposals need to be reviewed by a Referendum Review Committee, formed by the head of the Central Election Committee and representatives from all political parties proportionally to their representation in the Legislature. Whoever controls the legislative majority controls everything about the referendum. In view of such restrictions, the Referendum Law is perhaps the most anti-democratic of its kind in the world. This is indeed a retreat for democratic politics in Taiwan.

Although the new law is preposterous, it fortunately contains Article 17, which allows for a defensive referendum. This may be the only redeeming feature of this wicked law.

The defensive referendum article says that "when the nation is exposed to an external threat which threatens a change in national sovereignty, the president may, following a resolution by the Cabinet, place matters of national security before the public for decision in a national referendum."

In other words, given a concrete hostile threat that threatens to change the status of Taiwan's sovereignty -- China still has not given up its threat of attacking Taiwan, it has repeatedly tried every method to annex Taiwan, and it has ambitions to "unify China" -- this is the best time to hold a defensive referendum.

At a time when the enemy is still not on our doorstep, a defensive referendum is certainly the best way to demonstrate the public's determination to oppose the enemy and protect Taiwan's sovereignty, and to consolidate the power of the "soft national defense" that the people want. It is not an armed provocation, nor is it a referendum on independence. It is, rather, a referendum to oppose Chinese armed invasion. What reason could China or the international community have to oppose this? What excuse could the blue camp come up with to oppose and block this?

If the people cannot choose their own future in next year's presidential election, do they then have to wait until China invades, and, while fighting a war, organize a referendum to decide their own fate?

Taiwan's political situation is exceptional. Historically, Taiwan has spent most of its time under colonial rule or under the rule of Chinese governments, and the people of Taiwan are ruled by a Constitution created in 1946, one not compatible with the nation's current situation.

What crime have the people of Taiwan committed? Why do they have to suffer both international restrictions and the threat of China's regional hegemony? Fortunately, Taiwan is a democratic country where the people can elect their representatives and leaders, and in the future they will also be able to choose their way of life in a national referendum.

The whole world knows that as long as China doesn't give up its armed threats, it is an impossibility that the Asian region will remain peaceful.

It cannot be guaranteed that the lives, property and happiness of the Taiwanese people will still exist tomorrow.

We must consolidate the public will for the sake of individual property and national survival and development, and use a national referendum to unambiguously let China know what road Taiwan will take in the future.

We also hope that the blue camp, with its opposing view, will be able to take the same position as the majority of the people, and listen carefully to the voice of the people instead of continuing to support China's lies and fawn on China. We must not allow 23 million Taiwanese to miss this opportunity to express their wishes.