Defensive referendum can clarify viewpoints

By Parris Chang

Monday, Dec 08, 2003,Page 8

President Chen Shui-bian has declared that a defensive referendum will be held along with the presidential election on March 20. He has, on several occasions, issued guarantees to the people of Taiwan and the international community that a referendum won't involve the unification-independence issue, and that it will not go against the "five noes" that he outlined in his inaugural speech in 2000.

Beijing, however, has decided that holding a defensive referendum means moving towards independence. Many party and government officials, therefore, issue statements criticizing and warning Chen, and they are also exerting heavy pressure on Washington to "deal with" Taiwan's referendum measures.

In response to pressure from China, officials from the US State Department and National Security Council have on several occasions over the past week expressed their concern over the defensive referendum. The State Department has unambiguously said that the US opposes a unification-independence referendum.

In fact, the US government understands Chen's repeated guarantees, and it also understands that a defensive referendum will not involve unification-independence or the "five noes," but in order to calm Beijing, Washington has to make a few harsh statements aimed at Taipei.

China has learned its lesson and currently uses the US to deal with Taiwan. In the belief that the road from Beijing to Taipei leads through Washington, they have kicked the ball over to the Americans. US officials therefore use various moralistic ways of persuading Taiwan in order to let Beijing see that they indeed have worked hard to deal with Taipei. At the same time, the US worries that Beijing (particularly the military hardliners) will force President Hu Jintao and his government to take actions that neither the US nor Taiwan want to see.

The US has, on several occasions, stated that it opposes Chinese use of armed force to solve the conflict with Taiwan. It has also made some preventive assessments of a few possible radical actions by Beijing, and it will have various scenarios prepared in response to a Chinese concentration of arms in southern China, military exercises, or armed threats against Taiwan.

Have the Americans not heard Taiwan's repeated explanations to Washington? We believe that American diplomats shall use various channels to explain to the White House, Congress and public that a defensive referendum is aimed at promoting and deepening Taiwanese democracy. Although the Referendum Law, as it was passed, isn't perfect, it is a great victory for the people. We look forward to future amendments to the Referendum Law to give appropriate expression to the people's right to hold referendums.

We want to make the Taiwanese public understand that a defensive referendum is necessary for the security of the nation. China has almost 500 missiles aimed at this country. Can we pretend that they do not exist? One of the topics for the defensive referendum is to make the public clarify whether or not they approve of China's removing theses missiles.

Beijing constantly belittles Taiwan, and wants to make it a special administrative region like Hong Kong or Macau. Another topic for the defensive referendum is allowing people to express whether they approve of Beijing's "one country, two systems" model.

A clarification of the public's position on these topics would be persuasive in strengthening national security by making the international community understand that Taiwan does not want to be threatened by, or be part of, China.

Parris Chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

Chen details issues to be put to vote

MISSILE THREAT: The president said that neither the US nor China could oppose referendums aimed at improving cross-strait stability and deterring aggression

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

Monday, Dec 08, 2003,Page 1

President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday the topics for the March 20 "defensive referendum" would be demanding that China dismantle its missiles aimed at Taiwan and that it publicly renounce the use of force against Taiwan.

Speaking to an estimated 100,000 DPP supporters in Taichung last night, Chen said the 496 missiles across the Strait threaten not only Taiwan but also regional stability.

"I would like to propose a defensive referendum that neither China nor the US could oppose: that we want China to dismantle missiles aimed at Taiwan and publicly renounce the use of force against Taiwan," Chen said.

Earlier in the day, Chen addressed over 30,000 Hakka people in front of the Yimin Temple, a Hakka religious center, in Hsinpu township, Hsinchu County.

Chen related the spirits of the Hakka militia "Yimin," who sacrificed their lives in the 18th century to protect their homeland, to the need for a "defensive" or "preventative" referendum in order to ensure the security of Taiwan in the light of the military threat from China.

"The Hakka spirits are the Yimin spirits, which are best described as spirits to protect the homeland, and that's what the spirit of the defensive referendum is about," Chen said.

Chen said the purpose of the referendum was to maintain cross-strait peace and Taiwan's democracy and to oppose any possibility of war.

"The defensive referendum to be held next March 20 is anti-missile and anti-war," Chen said.

Speaking at the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) first large-scale campaign rally aimed at Hakka voters, Chen said that Taiwan did not have ethnic conflicts, only the issue of identity -- whether the people who live here identify with Taiwan or not, and whether the people recognize the fact that Taiwan is not part of China.

Chen was speaking in response to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's recent proposal to hold a referendum on ethnic reconciliation to promote ethnic harmony.

Pointing out the erosion of Hakka cultural heritage, Chen said the most critical challenge for Hakka culture was that Hakka people were not willing to admit their ethnic origins -- a phenomenon manifested in many Hakka's inability to speak their own language.

According to statistics from the Council for Hakka Affairs, less than 10 percent of Hakka teenagers can speak fluent Hakka.

To prevent Hakka culture from being lost, Chen said in addition to the establishment of the Council for Hakka Affairs, set up under Chen's administration three years ago, and several Hakka cultural research institutions, his ultimate goal is to found a Yimin University specially designated for the promotion of Hakka culture.

More than 30,000 Hakka people attended the rally yesterday.

The Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoli areas, in which a large number of Taiwan's 4 million Hakka reside and which have long been strongholds of pan-blue support, are seen as key to Chen's re-election chances.

Hakka heavyweight Fan Cheng-tsung, a former head of the Cabinet's Council of Agriculture and Hsinchu County Commissioner, who recently agreed to head the DPP's campaign team in Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoli, yesterday said the DPP expected to boost its support among Hakka from 24 percent in the 2000 presidential election to 40 percent in next year's poll.

Fan said Chen has been keenly working on making connections in the Hakka community since he became president, proving his determination to promote Hakka affairs.

"Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoli are the most important areas for the DPP in next year's election. Due to the KMT's long-term domination of these areas, we expect a qualified victory by at least not losing by too much," Fan said.

Lien lists `three dangers' of re-electing Chen

CAMPAIGN TRAIL: The KMT chairman said his rival's mercurial temperament was plunging Taiwan into crisis while people's basic needs were not being met

By Huang Tai-lin

STAFF REPORTER

Monday, Dec 08, 2003,Page 1

Slamming President Chen Shui-bian's call for a "preventative referendum," Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and pan-blue alliance presidential candidate Lien Chan yesterday said Chen's call showed that Taiwan was in a crisis on three fronts.

"In view of Chen's call for a preventive referendum, it shows that Taiwan is in the dangerous condition of being subject to emotional referendums, Boxer Rebellion-like referendums and displaying a lack of care for the plight of ordinary people" Lien said in a speech delivered at a campaign rally held last night at Taipei's CKS Memorial Hall.

Lien was referring to Chen's declaration that he would hold 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.

"The preventative referendum should be renamed the moody referendum," Lien ridiculed, criticized Chen's rephrasing of the term from "defensive referendum" to "preventive referendum" as showing Chen's mercurial manner.

"The president's mood changes are becoming a grave national crisis," Lien said.

He went on to mock Chen's call for a referendum on China's missiles as a Boxer Rebellion-like referendum "thinking that [holding the referendum] would able to block China's missiles."

Admitting that his failed presidential bid four years ago was hard for him to accept in the initial stages, Lien yesterday stressed that he had learned a lot over the past four years.

Chen won the 2000 presidential election with 39 percent of the vote nationwide; People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong, now Lien's running mate but who then ran as an independent, took 36 percent while Lien, the KMT's candidate, came in a distant third with 23 percent.

"Over the past four years, I've seen the people's plight," Lien said. "Chen, on the other hand, has forgotten people's everyday struggles since taking office but cares only about his re-election campaign."

Taking the stage before Lien, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, in his capacity as the chief campaign manager of the alliance's campaign team, worked to bolster Lien's presidential candidacy by criticizing the DPP administration's performance as "disappointing" and stressing that under Lien's leadership in the past three years, the KMT has engaged in introspection resulting in reform.

Prior to the rally last night, the alliance formally established its national campaign headquarters in Taipei yesterday afternoon.

Located in the KMT-owned Pa-te building, the spot was also the campaign headquarters of Ma when he was running for his second mayoral term last December and of former president Lee Teng-hui and his then vice-president Lien when they were running in the 1996 presidential election.

Numerous pan-blue political luminaries showed up at the event to express their support for Lien and Soong.

Lien took the occasion to slam Chen for "being irrational" about his referendum call.

"I want to sternly tell Chen that the best defense for Taiwan is not through the so-called preventative referendum but to rebuild Taiwan's economic strength to achieve another Taiwan miracle," Lien said.

Lien then highlighted the theme of his presidential campaign, which is to be "salvaging Taiwan by salvaging Taiwan's economy and peace".

Lien pledged that, once elected, he would pursue arms control talks with China and demand China "freeze" its missiles currently aimed at Taiwan as well as annually reduce its military threat toward Taiwan.

Editorial: We want action, not wishful thinking

For 20 years British elections have been enriched by the program of the Official Monster Scientific Raving Loony Party. The Raving Loonies have never yet won a parliamentary seat, but their bizarre manifestos, and their wonderful motto "Vote for insanity, you know it makes sense" so often puncture the humbug that is the usual stuff of political discourse. A particular joy was their proposal in 2001 to reduce school class sizes -- a hot election issue of the day -- by buying smaller desks and sitting children closer together.

The Raving Loonies are a kind of intermission cabaret to liven up the more serious acts of political theater. But perhaps they should try to proselytize Raving Loonyism in Taiwan. Here is surely a political environment receptive to their message. As proof, examine the topics that have been proposed as subjects for referendums. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan wants a referendum on ethnic harmony. That is bizarre enough. But President Chen Shui-bian now wants a referendum on Chinese missiles, since the newly passed referendum law precludes him from carrying out his previous inane idea -- a referendum on membership in the World Health Organization (WHO).

After having been ardent supporters of the passage of any form of referendum law that could be sneaked through the legislature we are rapidly becoming appalled at the consequences. Having brought this serious instrument of policy adjudication into Taiwan's political framework, both sides of the political divide seem to be doing their utmost to bring it into disrepute.

Referendums are supposed to be about serious policy decisions. They should involve trade-offs and the campaign around them is devoted to bringing out what those trade-offs are and allowing voters to weigh them.

In this light we have no problem about such issues as a referendum on National Health Insurance contributions. Do you want to pay more insurance or do you want to pay more of your own medical fees if you are ill? That's a simple choice and voters can see what the trade-offs are. Do you support an increase in the national debt or an increase in taxation is also reasonably simple -- although misleading since increased debt will have to be serviced eventually by taxation.

These kinds of "weigh the trade-offs" referendums are essentially about finding an answer to the question "what should we do?" when circumstances -- in Taiwan's case the lack of clear mandate to govern among any of the contenders -- prevent settlement by the usual machinery of representative democracy.

But the proposed referendums that are getting the attention are not, however, of this practical type. They are of the "wish list" kind. The vote can have no possible effect on the issue that is being voted on. China will not remove its missiles because Taiwanese voters says it should. Ethnic groups won't forgive and forget because voters think it would be a good idea, and the WHO won't admit Taiwan because this country's voters would like it to.

And where is the choice? Who is going to argue that China should keep its missiles pointed at Taiwan, that ethnic hatreds should be maintained, or that Taiwan should continue to be excluded from the WHO? The question is rhetorical. So what we are looking at is simple acclamation of a government initiative. The referendum, which is supposed to be a serious tool of decision-making between contending policies, is being reduced to the status of a group cheer. This confuses voters as to what referendums are for -- remember Taiwan has never held one, so what we do next will define, in many people's eyes, what can be done -- and devalues the concept in their eyes.

Let us have referendums on lower-level topics to educate people in the practical uses of popular democracy. And leave the wish list at home.

US must see status quo as what it is

By James Wang

Monday, Dec 08, 2003,Page 8

In response to threats recently leveled at Taiwan by a mid-level Chinese official, the US state department has reiterated its policy that the use of force is not an acceptable way of resolving the difference of opinion over the cross-strait issue. The State Department also reiterated US opposition to any unilateral change to the cross-strait status quo.

The US opposes the use of force to solve the cross-strait dispute; that position is clear. The US should not be alone in persisting in this policy. What's more, a love for peace and an opposition to the use of force to resolve conflicts are important parts of the UN Charter. The position stated by the US when it established diplomatic relations with China was that it would not tolerate an armed solution to the cross-strait dispute. It was both appropriate and necessary for the US to reiterate this point as a reminder to China.

The second part of the statement, however -- that the US opposes any unilateral attempt to change the cross-strait status quo -- is not clear, and it is unfair to Taiwan's democratic progress. There is no agreement about the exact definition of the cross-strait status quo, nor is there any clear definition of what the US means by the status quo.

Since there is no agreed definition, opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo is a matter of subjectivity.

There are three fundamental components to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait:

First, for more than half a century, neither Taiwan nor China has been under the jurisdiction of the other side, and they have both had their own government, territory and people.

Second, the only possible way change the status quo would be to change "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" into "one country on both sides of the Taiwan Strait."

Third, there is no Taiwanese policy aiming at one country on both sides.

China is the only country that wants to change the status quo, and the only country attempting to use force to coerce Taiwan into changing the status quo.

This has been the fundamental cross-strait status for more than half a century. Based on democratic values and the spirit of the UN Charter, the policy of the US and the international community should not be to talk frivolously about opposing unilateral changes to the status quo. Rather, it should be to actively recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, thus allowing one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait to develop independently towards democracy and freedom.

If the US and the international community, including China, do not recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, but instead allow China to interpret the status quo and define what Taiwan can and cannot do, then they will be sacrificing the principles of democracy. What's more, China's dominating mind-set will harm regional stability and normal development.

As a democratic country, the US cannot tolerate China's arbitrary meddling in Taiwan's democratic development. The US must not give China the freedom to define Taiwanese independence. Taiwan is not part of China's territory, nor is it a colony of any country. It is an independent, democratic country built on popular sovereignty. Its people have the final right to make decisions concerning reform of their governmental system and policy adjustments. Its people have the right to amend the anachronistic and inappropriate Constitution that they in the past have been forced to accept, or to create a new constitution.

If Taiwan needs China's approval to amend its Constitution, or to create a new constitution, then Taiwan is not an independent country, but has deteriorated to the same position as Hong Kong. But Taiwan's status quo is not that of Hong Kong. Taiwan hass a currently implemented Constitution, while China has a dictatorial and totalitarian "constitution" that is in direct opposition to democracy, freedom and human rights.

China's constitution stipulates that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China." That in itself is an attempt to change the status quo, which is that neither of the two sides has anything to do with the other side. China is the kind of non-democratic, domineering country that the US State Department should condemn.

Towards the end of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rule, Taiwan's "Constitution of the Republic of China" was amended, the Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion were abolished, the existence of the PRC was pragmatically recognized, and Taiwan continued to exist as an independent country under the name "the Republic of China."

Former president Lee Teng-hui put forward the "special state-to-state relations" model, and then President Chen Shui-bian proposed the "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" model, both of which describe the status quo. Taiwan is merely asking that every country respect and recognize the status quo -- one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait. It is not trying to change the status quo.

It is true that there are differing opinions regarding the "special state-to-state" and "one country on each side" models in Taiwan. Just as with the issue of a majority of people opposing those who accept the "one China" model, however, this is a domestic issue that can be addressed through the democratic process. The workings of this democratic process should be enthusiastically supported by all democratic countries. The US should not take a conservative approach towards Taiwan's democratic development just because a non-democratic country with hegemonic ambitions harbors a differing opinion.

Democracy is a process of growth and development. The US must not restrict Taiwan's democracy and turn it into a "birdcage democracy," nor should it restrict Taiwan by turning that birdcage into the status quo.

The US has never recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. It has no grounds for accepting China's demands for restricting Taiwan's democracy. The Taiwan Relations Act treats Taiwan as an independent country, and it calls this island, its people and its government "Taiwan." It is only natural that the people of Taiwan are called by their right name and that a new constitution should be created. It is China that is blocking the development of Taiwanese democracy and attempting to crush the "one country on each side" model, as well as the stable development of each side. Taiwan merely asks that the two remain separated and that each side respect the other side's internal democratic reforms.

If the US treats the deepening of Taiwanese democracy -- and pragmatic progress toward sovereignty -- as off limits, they are showing contempt for democratic principles and they are showing insufficient respect for Taiwan's democratic development.

US policy should be to recognize "one country on each side" as being the status quo, and to strongly urge China to follow the global trend toward democratization and liberalization and to strive for domestic and international peace and stability.

The real source of instability is a non-democratic country's interference with a democratic country's reforms.

James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.

Who's the boss?

The pan-blue camp scored an historic victory on Nov. 27, following its still-resented defeat in the presidential election of 2000.

They forged a restrictive Referendum Law, designed and carved out strictly by and for the pan-blue camp, thanks to the far superior firepower of the combined Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) in the Legislative Yuan.

The rancorous feeling among the members of the KMT and PFP is abundantly evident from their constant attacks at all costs on the administration of President Chen Shui-bian since the day he took office.

In a case of arm-twisting in the legislature, the pan-blue camp passed its Referendum Law.

We now know that the Referendum Law is useless to the people. It does nothing but insult them.

The actions of the pan-blue camp in the legislature confirm my theory that if they cannot rule Taiwan from the office of the president, they intend to do so from the legislative body instead.

Beware: The pan-blue camp has sent a very clear message to the people of Taiwan about who's the boss.

US can't fall into China's trap

In the period of a few weeks, the George W. Bush administration has gone from supporting President Chen during his visit to New York to expressing doubt over its Taiwan policy (US' Taiwan policy in doubt: academic, Dec. 4, page 1). One has to wonder how promoting democracy, free speech and free elections by free people -- in an election or a referendum -- could ever be considered "provocation."

What the Bush administration is trying to tell Taiwan is: "Not so fast."

Consensus will come, and things could be different, but only if Chen is re-elected by a majority vote and Taiwan has a credible deterrent to Chinese invasion, without total reliance on the US.

Appeasement of a lying, terrorizing, dictatorial regime such as the PRC is not a better option for foreign policy. Yet Taiwan has to do much more than it has so far.

China has not been able to influence the Taiwanese electorate in its favor in the past, so this time it is trying its luck with the Bush administration instead, with more threats than before. It would be a big mistake for the US to do or say anything to achieve that goal for China. If Chen is not re-elected, Taiwan will most certainly backtrack on its democracy to a risky point of no return.

Therefore, for the Bush administration, perhaps the best policy now is not change, but rather to maintain the "status quo" and not fall into the trap of China's trickery and aggression. Generations of Americans have done their share of helping democratic countries against tyrants, and now is not the time to change that.

If Bush thinks appeasing China will benefit his chances of being re-elected, that would be another big mistake. Judging by his record, Bush's moral commitment is solid, unlike some of his predecessors. Yet it is not hard to be influenced by advisers of lesser commitment.

Therefore, I appeal to Bush to not change now.