|
Where is the fruit of our democracy?
Wednesday, Jun 16, 2010, Page 8
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has proven
itself adept at saying one thing, while doing another. Examples include hiking
commodity prices while claiming to “take the people’s plight to heart” and
refusing to hold a referendum while saying that doing so on important issues
“pertains to the public interest.”
When meeting with a delegation led by Columbia University’s vice president of
Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks on Monday, Ma said that although some say that
Asian, and particularly Chinese, cultures are not suited for democracy, Taiwan’s
“democratic seed has taken root” through decades of continuous practice and
implementation. Noting a congratulatory telegraph sent two years ago by then-US
president George W. Bush commending the success of Taiwan’s presidential
election and lauding Taiwan as “a beacon of democracy for Asia and the world,”
Ma went on to tell his US guests of his desire to further Taiwan’s democracy, as
it is a path “worth continuing on.”
Taiwan prides itself on its democratization experience and it is befitting for
the president to trumpet this achievement for all the world.
However, allowing democracy to take root is one thing; consolidating the fruits
of democracy is another. Recent incidents have led some to wonder how Ma’s talk
of furthering Taiwan’s democracy measures up.
Case in point: Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-hua (江宜樺) on Monday confirmed
that Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has issued a directive requesting his ministry to
look into drawing up a proposal within three months on whether there is a need
to amend the Referendum Act (公民投票法).
The move came in the wake of the Referendum Review Committee’s rejection of an
opposition-proposed referendum on the government’s planned cross-strait economic
cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), with Wu quoted by local media as saying
that the amendment is being mulled “in a bid to avoid similar cases in the
future in which a referendum proposal is initiated to affect or obstruct the
government from doing what it should be doing.”
A second example saw police officers dispatched to the 37 stations set up by
Pingtung County’s Chaojhou Township (潮州) on Saturday to monitor a township-wide
survey, coinciding with borough and village-level elections, that asked two
questions: “Do you agree with Taiwan signing an economic cooperation framework
agreement with China?” and “Do you agree that a tap water system should be
installed throughout Chaojhou?”
Among the 4,932 valid responses received, 4,394 were against signing an ECFA,
while 538 said they supported the trade pact. Township officials said that more
people would have taken part in the survey if it wasn’t for the intimidation of
the on-site police surveillance, in addition to the fact the survey
administrators were asked by the Central Election Commission — to avoid inciting
disturbance and obstructing local elections — to keep survey stations 30m away
from the election ballot stations.
As it is within a local governing body’s rights to hold surveys to help it
better understand its people’s views and needs, what was it about this survey
that required police surveillance? If mention of the ECFA issue was the main
reason for police surveillance, it shows how intent the central government is on
repressing people’s right to express their views.
Against the backdrop of the Ma administration’s opposition to holding a
referendum on an ECFA, the public has good reason to worry whether the premier
intends to amend the Referendum Act to further restrict people’s voices. If the
end goal of all these actions is to give the government more control over the
people and to stop people from making their opinions heard, how can Ma tout
Taiwan as a beacon of democracy for other countries?
The Ma administration has proven it can talk the talk of democracy. Can it walk
the walk?
|
