|
The illogical fear of referendums
Sunday, May 30, 2010, Page 8
The first stage of the signature collection process for an
economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) referendum proposed by the
Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) — “Do you agree that the government should sign an
ECFA with China?” — has been completed and will be submitted to the Referendum
Review Committee. Preparations for the second stage — where 860,000 signatures
must be collected — are continuing and people nationwide are expected to react
with an overwhelming response.
At this crucial moment, the pan-blue camp is getting hung up on trivialities,
saying that although the TSU is clearly opposed to the ECFA, its referendum
proposal asks if voters agree to an ECFA. If the number of ballots do not pass
the required threshold, the pan-blues say, the TSU could still claim that the
public opposes an ECFA. Opponents of the referendum say such political
calculations are using cracks in the Referendum Act (公民投票法), suggesting that if
the referendum proposal passes, it could cause a crisis in the democratic system
and harm the institution of referendums.
In taking such political measures, the pan-blue camp is clearly trying to
influence the Referendum Review Committee so that its review will be
disadvantageous to the TSU proposal. They may even be trying to direct the
committee to kill the proposal. The word “agree” in the proposal, however,
essentially means “ do you or do you not agree?”
The referendums on Taiwan joining the UN launched by the Democratic Progressive
Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 2008 both used the word
“agree,” which also meant “do you or do you not agree?”
It is common knowledge that the TSU opposes the ECFA, as do many Taiwanese. All
ECFA opponents are asking is that they be allowed the legal right to hold a
referendum to let the public express their will and counterbalance the
government’s obstinate behavior since the KMT-dominated legislature is incapable
of effectively monitoring the government.
It is very simple: If you hold a referendum on the ECFA, then those who oppose
it can show their opposition through their ballots and those who support it can
likewise express it by ballot. After all, haven’t both President Ma Ying-jeou
(馬英九) and Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said in public that they are not opposed to a
referendum? Let’s ask the public what they think.
Those who oppose an ECFA can ask voters to vote against it, while those in
support can ask voters to support it. That would facilitate a debate between
representatives of the two camps, gradually clarifying the truth about the
proposed ECFA. There’s no point to worrying that a failure to pass the threshold
of votes for a referendum could be interpreted to mean that the public does not
want an ECFA.
Those with ulterior political motives who accuse the TSU of such scheming would
do better to direct their efforts toward mobilizing ECFA supporters so they can
win a landslide victory in support of the agreement. That would be the best
solution, since it considers both those who want an ECFA referendum and those
who support an ECFA.
Regrettably, that’s not what the critics want. They oppose any referendum and
would be more likely to directly or indirectly ask ECFA supporters not to vote
at all. That is why they worry that by ensuring that the referendum does not
pass the threshold number of voters required, they will help make the TSU’s
political calculations succeed.
What is it that makes this referendum so dangerous? It’s not a natural disaster
or a monster; it’s a way to let the public say “yea” or “nay” to an ECFA. If the
pan-blue camp did all it could instead to encourage ECFA supporters to call for
a referendum and the subsequent result is majority support for an ECFA, it would
be an opportunity for them to prove that the government’s policy is founded on
strong public support.
Looking at the referendum ballot, there is a field for the main referendum
question and a field each for “agree” and “disagree.” There is no risk that
voters will be confused and the wording of the referendum text will not affect
the public’s referendum rights. If the TSU’s proposal causes concerns that it
will be interpreted as public opposition to an ECFA if voter turnout does not
reach the threshold number, that is not the result of any kind of political
scheming. Rather, it is a product of loopholes in the Referendum Law, which
would mean that it should be amended.
The same thing happened with the two referendums on UN membership for Taiwan:
Neither reached the minimum voter turnout due to the high turnout threshold and
the KMT’s active discouragement of the public from voting. The KMT interpreted
this as the public’s opposition to both referendums. Those who are critical of
the TSU’s referendum proposal used this very approach to interpret these two
referendums, so they are now reaping what they sowed.
The TSU’s referendum question is intended to let the public express clear
agreement or disagreement with the proposed ECFA. This is in line with the idea
that sovereignty rests with the people. By getting caught up in trivialities,
the pan-blue camp has highlighted a longstanding democratic problem, namely,
that some people are opposed to the use of the referendum. As a result, they
always think there is political scheming behind referendum demands, which is why
they always try to block referendums from passing the minimum voter threshold
requirement.
If these people do not change their anti-democratic behavior and continue to
discuss the trivialities of irrelevant issues, thus hampering the referendum
process, they will put Taiwan’s democracy at risk and harm the referendum
system.
|
