Referendum will be a landmark

By Joseph Wu

Wednesday, Feb 04, 2004,Page 8

Taiwan will hold a national referendum on March 20 on two topics: one on the need to counter the Chinese missile threat and another on the building of a framework for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Even though there has been plenty of pan-blue criticism and skepticism surrounding the referendum, the vote on the issues will be a historical landmark in Taiwan's political development.

Ever since the beginning of Taiwan's democratization in the late 1980s, the term "referendum" was most often equated with an "independence referendum" or to formally separate Taiwan and China. But after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) adopted the "resolution regarding Tai-wan's future" in 1999, which formally recognizes the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, the need for an independence referendum no longer exists.

After the DPP freed itself from the "Taiwan independence platform" through formally recognizing the status quo, a referendum became a useful mechanism to resolve some longstanding issues. That was the reason why the earlier proposals to hold a referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, legislative reform and World Health Organization participation received extremely high support among Taiwanese.

Using referendums to reform the Legislative Yuan in particular has received nearly unanimous support from the public. This is not surprising, because the public perception of the legislature is far from ideal. Surveys indicate that the Legislative Yuan is competing fiercely with the media for the No. 1 position as the source of Tai-wan's problems. Of course Taiwan needs referendums as a democratic instrument for decision-making.

As the two proposed topics for referendum evidence themselves, the Taiwanese can exercise direct democracy without touching upon the sensitive sovereignty issues that are likely to ignite cross-strait conflict. Referendums can not only be a useful instrument to resolve internal debates, they can also pave the way for cross-strait dialogue and negotiations.

The passage of the Referendum Law last November was significant. It was another victory for Taiwanese democracy following the development of freedom of speech, the establishment of an opposition party, the removal of martial law and the emergency degree, forceful retirement of lawmakers elected in China, and direct election of the president.

Records show that the attitude and approach of those who tried to deter Taiwan from moving ahead were similar to those of today.

Actually, the anti-democracy politicians remain similar. People First Party James Soong, the pan-blue vice presidential candidate, used to serve as the Government Information Office director under martial law and he strongly defended the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) brutal suppression of the opposition. Back in 1994, now Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou fought against the popular election of the president and he is now leading the crusade to crush the first ever referendum in Taiwan.

The pan-blue critics and skeptics continue to charge that holding the March 20 referendum is illegal and unnecessary, and will cause a cross-strait crisis. It is even quietly telling the international community that this referendum is the crony of Taiwan independence and the DPP is paving the way for an independence referendum. They are of course lying just to stop Taiwan from moving forward. But eventually, the Taiwanese passionate pursuit of democracy will prevail.

Are the two topics of the referendum either divisive nor difficult as some critics portray? Legislative Yuan record shows that some pan-blue politicians enjoy slashing the budget for military procurement of any kind. It leads to repeated question from the American government whether Taiwan is determined to defend itself.

Su Chi, former Mainland Affairs Council chairman and chief foreign/cross-strait policy adviser to KMT Chairman Lien Chan, is leading the argument that "Taiwan doesn't face a threat," (Washington Post, Jan. 17.) This is an extremely peculiar and unquestionably dangerous argument indeed when China is pointing some 500 missiles at Taiwan. But this argument has been the basis for the pan-blue's boycott of the defense budget. Of course Taiwan needs a referendum topic like the one President Chen Shui-bian proposed to settle the issue.

Meanwhile, the topic of "frame-work for peace and stability" may or may not be divisive, but it is definitely difficult because of a serious lack of progress on the cross-strait dialog in the past few years. Chen is daring China to respond to his initiative on the framework, with details provided in his press conference.

If the people in Taiwan agree with what the president proposed as the "framework for peace and sta-bility," the referendum will have a binding effect on the government no matter who wins the presidential race. The peace referendum is of course necessary, and it will certainly be an important page in the history of cross-strait relations.

The DPP has been fighting for Taiwan's democracy even before that democracy came into being. The DPP has always been the key impetus to democratization, with the KMT authoritarianism and its remnant as the key obstacle. But the DPP has overcome every obstacle so far, and will again overcome the obstacle lying ahead of Taiwan's first exercise in direct democracy.

Joseph Wu is deputy secretary-general to the president.

Opposing lawmakers vow action

COUNTEROFFENSIVE: A group of KMT and PFP legislators said that they were still committed to passing a resolution that could prevent a referendum from being held

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Wednesday, Feb 04, 2004,Page 3

In a reaffirmation of their strategy, the pan-blues vowed to counter the groundswell of support enjoyed by their nemesis, President Chen Shui-bian, as a result of his adamant resolve to hold a referendum.

The opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) legislative caucuses yesterday again resolved to formulate a resolution that could force Chen to cancel the referendums on the two questions he officially unveiled yesterday.

The questions are scheduled to be approved by the Cabinet during its weekly meeting today.

The Referendum Law stipulates that the president has the right to initiate a referendum to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the nation if the president deems national security is under threat and sovereignty is in jeopardy. The initiative, however, must also be endorsed by a Cabinet resolution.

KMT Legislator Liao Fung-te said that the opposition caucuses hope to gather sufficient signatures to file the petition to pass the legislative resolution sometime next week.

"What we want to do here is to tell the president that the referendum is unnecessary and inappropriate because the legislative body can handle the matter via a legislative resolution," Liao said.

Due to their majority in the legislative body, the pan-blue parties should easily be able to pass a legislative resolution, which requires approval from half of the 225-member legislature. The petition requires at least 30 lawmakers' signatures.

If such a resolution were passed, opposition parties could demand that the Central Election Commission (CEC) stop preparations for the referendum, according to Article 20 of the Referendum Law.

Article 20 states that the CEC should immediately halt a referendum if the legislature holds a vote on an issue similar to the intended referendum.

In the referendum, the voters would be asked whether they support enhancing the nation's defenses should China refuse to withdraw the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan and to openly renounce the use of force, as well as whether the government should hold talks with China on cross-strait peace and stability.

The opposition caucuses, however, will scrap their original idea of petitioning for a constitutional interpretation and ordering pan-blue magistrates and mayors to boycott the referendum, Liao said.

"We don't think it's necessary [to request a constitutional interpretation] because the referendum is a matter of breaking the Referendum Law not the Constitution," he said.

Instead of ordering county commissioners and city mayors in the pan-blue camp to boycott the referendum, Liao said that the pan-blue parties will ask CEC members to express their party's stance via "pliable moral persuasion." Dismissing the opposition bloc's move to formulate a legislative resolution is aimed at boycotting the planned referendum, another KMT Legislator Huang Teh-fu said that it was merely a "friendly and rational reminder" that the referendum should not be used as a political tool to sway voters.

"I think the DPP overestimates our power to hinder the planned referendum," Huang said. "What we can do is just to remind them of the legality of the referendum and that what we care about is that the presidential election goes as smoothly as possible."

Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung said that the planned referendum would mark a milestone in the nation's democratic development.

"Over the past 20 years, Taiwan has pried open three doors of democracy and traveled across three mountains of freedom, including lifting the ban on political parties, directly electing the head of state and electing new legislators," Lin said. "Now we're opening the fourth door and scaling the fourth mountain: that is, to hold the nation's first national referendum."

To better educate the public about the planned referendum and encourage the electorate to cast their ballots, Lin said that the Cabinet will launch a full-scale information campaign in a week.

"We plan to distribute 9 million brochures to 7 million families nationwide by the middle of this month," Lin said. "We'll also run an ad about the two questions for referendum on the front pages in seven of the nation's newspapers tomorrow [Wednesday]."

In addition, the Cabinet will start running TV commercials in the middle of this month encouraging the public to cast their votes and advocating the necessity, urgency and appropriateness of the referendum.

Pro-China fugitive is just a blue-camp stooge

Chin Heng-wei

Friday, Feb 06, 2004,Page 8

The pan-blue camp is using Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group, as an instrument in its political machinations. The possibility that Chen is, likewise, using the pan-blue camp to get his name struck off the list of the country's 10-most-wanted fugitives should not be ruled out.

It is quite obvious that Chen's intention was to implicate President Chen Shui-bian and contribute to a Democratic Progressive Party loss in the presidential election.

But can the pan-blue camp and Chen Yu-hao successfully employ such a maneuver to bring this about? And will the public find him trustworthy?

It is abundantly clear that the president has not been playing favorites in the wake of this fugitive making political contributions.

But donations and bribes are two different matters, and this fugitive has used what he himself has called donations to accuse the president of engaging in "black gold" politics.

Where's the sense in that?

What is known is that the disgraced businessman is a pro-China businessman on the side of the pan-blue camp, and has been a major donor to them.

After the Chung Hsing Bills Finance embezzlement scandal surfaced, it emerged that the tycoon's lavish donation of NT$100 million to the KMT in 1991 had ended up in Soong's pocket.

So would it be credible if he then turned around and accused Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan, Soong's campaign partner, of accepting this cash?

Now Chen Yu-hao says he gave "black gold" money to the Presidential Office Deputy Secretary-General, Chen Che-nan, and the Vice Chairman of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, Chang Ching-sen. Does this make any sense either?

In his three open letters, Chen Yu-hao mentioned his black-gold "contributions" without offering any evidence that they were illegal.

When singling out the two members of the government he allegedly had ties to, he made no attempt to answer the three other key questions -- the what, where and when.

Both of the people he named are well-known for their close ties to the president. But implicating the president in this "scandal" on these grounds alone is laughable.

The tycoon claimed that he did not get a receipt for his donations.

If that were the case, then he should at least clarify the size of the donation and where he handed over the money.

A lack of evidence does not mean there can be no answers to such questions. Who will be convinced of his claims if he refuses to provide them? [Editor's note: The DPP on Tuesday released copies of "thank-you awards" to Chen Yu-hao, dated March 1 and March 6, 2000.]

There is no law to regulate "political contributions." So the contributions are not illegal.

But this criminal suspect has gone ahead and fired a volley of serious but preposterous allegations from his safe house in China.

The fact that the fugitive's three open letters were published in the KMT-run Central Daily News more or less assures us that he is a stooge in the pan-blue camp's election campaign.

Chen Yu-hao has claimed that being listed on the 10-most-wanted fugitives is against the law and the Constitution.

Well, then, why not come home and file a lawsuit?

Such is the credibility of allegations thrown up by criminal suspects who try their hand in politicking.

Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.