US must embrace our referendum

By Li Thian-hok

Tuesday, Feb 03, 2004,Page 8

`If the Bush administration is so keen on dialogue, it should tell China to drop its preconditions.'

In response to intense criticism from the Bush administration, the government has modified the two topics of the March 20 referendum, focusing on the desirability of acquiring anti-missile weapons and pursuing negotiations with China.

While somewhat mollified by the "flexibility" in the new language, a senior Bush administration official is wary that President Chen Shui-bian finds it necessary to hold a referendum on issues with obvious answers. The suspicion persists that the referendum is a campaign tactic designed primarily to enhance Chen's chances for reelection.

Such views, however, show that the Bush team is ill-informed on Taiwan's politics and is not sufficiently attuned to the country's precarious situation, facing not only China's growing threats of military aggression but also seditious forces closer to home. These forces comprise the pro-China alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), the pro-capitulation media and some influential businessmen with heavy investment in China.

The proposed referendum is not just a symbolic opinion poll that will produce no visible effect on public policy. At this juncture in Taiwan's history the referendum is indispensable if the nation is to maintain the status quo, that is, its de facto independent status, free of Chinese control.

The KMT-PFP candidates never gracefully accepted defeat in the presidential election of 2000. The alliance has obstructed virtually every legislative proposal the DPP government has made. The people are fed up with unending partisan squabbles and government paralysis.

The Referendum Law enables the electorate to break the stalemate in the Legislative Yuan on vital issues. It also functions as an insurance policy to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Once this historic referendum takes place, the law can be modified so that no change in the status quo can ever be implemented without the assent of the majority of the citizenry, regardless of which political party is in power.

While the military balance is steadily and rapidly shifting in favor of China, many people in Taiwan, including government officials, academics, the media and the general public seem oblivious to the impending danger. The referendum is a wake-up call to make people realize the need to bolster national security and prepare people psychologically for the potential use of force or other coercive measures by the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Referendums provide the mechanism for the people to directly express their choice on important issues. It can deepen democracy by addressing deficiencies in the legislative and executive structures. If used judiciously and preceded by informed debate, referendums can also serve to forge a national consensus and consolidate the national will on such vital issues as the choice between freedom and servitude.

The March referendum may also call the attention of the international community to China's expansionism and its ambition to annex Taiwan by whatever means necessary. It is hoped that all peace-loving democracies will urge China to renounce the use of force against Taiwan and to respect the right of its 23 million people to determine their own future without outside interference, a right enshrined in the UN Charter.

China has long insisted that any dialogue with Taiwan must be preceded by acceptance of its claim that Taiwan is part of it. The March referendum can highlight the fact that it is this unreasonable precondition which prevents any substantive negotiations from taking place.

Bush administration spokesmen have advised Taipei that a referendum serves little useful purpose, that dialogue is a better approach. Such remarks show the Bush team is either confused or ill-informed. Surely the US government is not suggesting that Taiwan should unilaterally alter the status quo by surrendering its sovereignty to the Chinese? If the Bush administration is so keen on dialogue, it should tell China to drop its preconditions.

The US should refrain from interfering in Taiwan's domestic politics and refrain from micro-management of the referendum's wording. A critical stance toward Chen and the referendum would be counterproductive, since a KMT-PFP victory in March could well result in a drastic disruption of the status quo, such as unilateral surrender within a couple of years. Remember KMT Chairman Lien Chan's proud declaration during his visit to Washington: "Thank God I am 100-percent, pure Chinese."

If the Bush administration is genuinely concerned about PLA adventurism in reaction to either the referendum or the March election outcome, it should build up a robust deterrence posture in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait, as mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act and recommended by the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review which was published shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.

Certainly the war against terror is important. But Washington may imperil its significant strategic interests in East Asia by failing to act in time.

Li Thian-hok is a commentator based in Pennsylvania.

A sad day for democracy

It has been reported that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou suggested that cities and counties controlled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) boycott the referendum proposed by President Chen Shui-bian.

Apparently the KMT believes that, as a major political party, it can compel members who are elected officials to disobey laws with which it disagrees (as opposed to those declared void by legal process).

This is indeed a sad day for democracy in Taiwan. It is the kind of thing that would happen in a one-party system, such as China's, but not in a democracy.

The rule of law governs democracies, not the rule of tyranny. Citizens and workers can express their opinions and can carry out boycotts. Elected officials must do their jobs according to the law, or they will be dismissed or impeached. The only means by which elected officials can address a law with which they do not agree is to follow the legal procedures to have the law changed, whether by legal challenge in court or by amendment or other legal process, or to have its enforcement stayed until its legality has been determined.

To suggest that all KMT officials should simply refuse to obey the law, and boycott a validly called election (or referendum), calls for anarchy. That would also be a sad day for democracy.

I am shocked that a man considered a prime candidate to become president would call for such a lawless measure. What measure of a man is it if he cannot resist the voice of corruption and tyranny, even if it is whispered to him by his colleague, the man in charge? Can he not resist that which he knows is corrupt and wrong?

No one is above the law -- neither KMT Chairman Lien Chan, nor Ma, nor Chen. But in a nation of laws, to obey the law is the very essence of democracy, to criticize it the very voice of democracy and to change it only by legal process and never by force the very heart of democracy. Could a lawyer with a degree from Harvard have any questions about this? If the president has the power to call for a defensive referendum (which he does), then the place to object to the referendum is in court, not in Lien's boardroom.

If the court were to declare the referendum void, the KMT would be the first to call for the president to desist, but until then it should respect the president's right by law to call for the referendum. That is how democracy works. It is no

surprise that a party which struggled to contain its often terrible oppression for five decades still doesn't get it.

What does it portend for Taiwan if the KMT believes it can simply ignore laws it does not like? Does it mean that if Lien is elected president, he would simply disregard laws he does not agree with? What if the legislature passes a law he doesn't like? Will he just ignore it? Will he enter into agreements with China that he is not authorized to enter into merely because he believes he can disregard laws he does not like?

How a party in opposition behaves is a very good baro-meter of how that party will behave if it is elected.

After five decades of abusive tyranny, and a scant four years in opposition, now faced with the challenges of political disagreements, the KMT is advocating anarchy, or lawlessness.

What can that possibly mean for the future of Taiwan? And what would happen if the KMT passes laws that the people don't like?

You can be sure if Lien becomes president, the KMT would be the first to jail every single person who disagreed with its policies, in particular those who voice their objections in public, probably starting with the former president and vice president -- the common indicators of dictatorial power, the tendency to silence the opposition by incarceration. This is the way tyrants behave in a dictatorship.

And the KMT is showing its hand in how it deals with the referendum -- dictatorial and imperious, encouraging anarchy and lawlessness.

Remember that. If Taiwan returns the KMT to power, the people will have no one to blame but themselves for the loss of their freedom and democracy.

It will be a sad day for democracy in Taiwan. And for the world.

Learning the hard way

When are the people of Taiwan going to learn that most of the world does not care about what is right or what the truth is. The only way to protect yourselves is to acquire the knowledge and the ability to produce top-of-the-line warships, fighters and other weaponry.

America will not help you because your market is not as big as China's. Nor do you have something we need and can not get somewhere else.

Chirac lost face when he caned the referendum

By Chin Heng-wei

Tuesday, Feb 03, 2004,Page 8

In front of Chinese President Hu Jintao, French President Jacques Chirac recently criticized Taiwan, saying it was committing a grave error by planning a referendum because a referendum could threaten regional stability. Of course this was said and done purely to satisfy China.

Chirac's attitude comes as a shock. He not only supported China in its violation of the spirit of the French Revolution but also blatantly interfered in another nation's domestic politics.

France is a republic with a 200-year history of practicing referendums. Chirac's opposition to another nation's referendum puts his own country to shame.

The real explanation for Chirac's attitude is that he wants to sell weapons to China to boost France's economy. After kissing China's butt, Chirac immediately demanded that the EU lift its arms embargo against China. His demand was rejected and, furthermore, he was rebuked by Graham Watson, head of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, who said this proposal would benefit a communist dictatorship renowned for violating human rights.

EU foreign ministers believe Beijing has a bad human rights record and is adopting a belligerent stance toward Taiwan. If this was not a slap in Chirac's face for his opposition to the referendum, at the very least it embarrassed him.

But this is not the only defeat for Chirac. The US Department of State also voiced its opposition to the idea of France and the EU lifting the weapons embargo against China.

Chirac lost face in his harsh opposition to the US-led war in Iraq, and now he is further berated by Washington. Nevertheless attempting to curry favor with Beijing, he has put himself in this embarrassing situation.

In selling out Taiwan to cozy up to China, Chirac was not supported by the French parliament. When Hu went to Paris' City Hall to deliver a speech, demonstrators gathered outside the venue, and 327 of the total 577 councilors refused to attend the meeting. Some even stood protesting with pieces of white tape over their mouths. This made things ugly for Hu and Chirac.

French media also took aim at Chirac. Major print media, including Le Monde, Liberation and Le Figaro, ran front-page stories criticizing Chirac's leaning toward China and introduced Taiwan and its referendum in great detail.

The French TV channel TF1, which enjoys the highest ratings in the country, reported in its evening news broadcast about Taiwan's past and present -- from female factory workers to Taiwan's rapid economic growth to President Chen Shui-bian receiving the people's warm welcome when delivering a speech.

What carries more weight is that the report quoted opinion polls saying that only 0.5 percent of the Taiwanese people support reunification with China. The French media displayed Taiwan's image in a positive light to repudiate Chirac's pro-China, anti-Taiwan attitude.

China has mustered the force of the whole nation to unite with the world's superpowers to put pressure on Taiwan's proposed referendum.

The pan-blue camp has said that holding a referendum is meaningless. But actually it is very meaningful. A small referendum immediately manifests the predicament facing Taiwan and the threat posed by China's missiles.

Before votes have even been cast on the referendum, the Taiwan issue has already been internationalized. The development of Taiwan's democracy might soon also come into the international spotlight. From a long-term point of view, this does only good and no harm.

Chin Heng-wei is the editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine. Translated by Jackie Lin