Nuclear bugaboo pops up again

Readers will have to forgive another editorial about referendums in Taiwan. But there is at least one aspect of the DPP's current plan which merits criticism.

First let us make it clear that we unequivocally support the idea of referendums, and this support goes beyond the emasculated version of the concept currently backed by the DPP which offers us direct democracy on contentious but nevertheless small issues but not for the biggest issues of all -- those that affect the nation's destiny. Surely this is a "thin end of the wedge" strategy; once the practice of referendums is established for lower-level issues it will become impossible for major issues -- anything to do with sovereignty -- to be decided by a cabal of Cabinet ministers as of yore. Give people some say, reasons the DPP, and they will want more say, which may be a safeguard against the greatest danger Taiwan faces, that of a backroom deal on unification being pushed upon the people of Taiwan without any kind of democratic consultation.

All in all a subtle tactic, then, but with one great problem. The stalking horse for a referendum, the issue on which a referendum is deemed necessary such that a law to legalize the practice should be passed in the legislature, is the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.

Again we must lay down a caveat, namely we have in the past been adamantly opposed to the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Our opposition is based on a number of factors: the question of the wisdom of nuclear power on a small island facing attack, probably involving a large number of missiles, from its bellicose neighbor; the fact that Taiwan has no repository for nuclear waste and, given the limitations of its crowded territory, will face great difficulties in constructing one; and last but not least, the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant has been a US$5 billion plus boondoggle for construction industry cronies of the previous KMT government and we see no reason why KMT-connected businessmen should be allowed to dip so deeply into the public purse.

Nevertheless, we have to ask whether it is is appropriate now to still be considering the cancellation of the plant's construction, which has to be considered a possibility if it is to be made the subject of a referendum. The plant is now 47 percent complete. It is scheduled to go on stream in three years' time. Canceling its construction would involve the waste of a couple of billion US dollars, which is hardly pocket change. The plant has long figured as an integral part of Taipower's projections of future generating capacity, and cannot, at short notice, be replaced; without it we may have to return to the summer peak period rolling brownouts of the mid-1990s. Then there is the question of contractual obligations. Taiwan signed a number of agreements with foreign suppliers of various bits of equipment. These agreements have been thrown into jeopardy once already when the government canceled the plant's construction in the autumn of 2000, only to be forced to restart it six months later. Now they are to be cast into doubt once more. "Taiwan, a great place to do business -- unless the government changes its mind" is hardly the most enticing of slogans.

Regrettably we have to put up with the power plant whether we like it or not. The time for cancellation is long past. Making this the raison detre for the referendum law only makes sense if one is cynical enough to hope that the referendum will, in fact, back construction. In which case the government will face criticism for organizing a very expensive way to confirm the status quo. But perhaps this is a price it is prepared to pay if it has larger issues in its sights.

Pan-blue support is `insincere'

POLITICALLY CALCULATED: Pro-independence activists say the referendum issue is only being used as a maneuvering tool with an eye on next year's election campaign

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

Pro-independence activists yesterday said the pan-blue camp's support for the DPP's bid to hold a referendum to decide the controversial unification issue with China is a politically calculated move instead of a sincere gesture.

"We all know clearly their [pan-blue camp] stance on whether or not to unite with China. Their support is merely a political calculation in the maneuvers of a presidential campaign," said Chen Yi-shen, deputy chairman of the Taiwan Society, North.

Following President Chen Shui-bian's announcement last Friday of holding a referendum on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the KMT-PFP alliance immediately said that it would support passing legislation for the referendum law in July and demanded the DPP hold the referendum in August.

The alliance said it would not limit the kind of issues to be discussed in the referendum, including Taiwan's unification with China or independence. They demanded that President Chen define his stance on the issue.

"Their way of proposing the referendum legislation is like adding chips to a gambling game -- which is very irresponsible, as the unification/independence issue cannot be dealt with in such a hasty manner," said Chen Yi-shen, a research fellow of modern history at the Academia Sinica.

Chen Yi-shen pointed out it is more important to establish the referendum as a regular democratic practice in Taiwanese society than jump to a conclusive decision for Taiwan's future.

"The social conditions for running a unification/independence referendum in Taiwan are still premature. First of all, the issue is very controversial. Secondly, we should let the people get used to the practice of holding referendums before taking action to decide Taiwan's sovereignty," Chen Yi-shen said.

Ng Chiau-tong, chairman of World United Formosans for Independence and an advisor to the President, yesterday said the KMT and PFP's flip-flop to support the referendum is a tremendous improvement, but only time will tell whether the pan-blue camp is serious about the issue.

"The joint consensus on supporting the referendum signifies a strong boost to the localization force in Taiwan," Ng said.

However, Ng expressed concern that the pan-blue camp's sudden cooperation on the referendum issue would be a big blow to the DPP's campaign for the presidential election next year.

"The localization force that usually stands closer to the DPP and its ideologies might become divided by the KMT-PFP alliance," Ng said.

But the pan-blue's showing of support might be just a campaigning maneuver, he said.

Both Chen Yi-shen and Ng yesterday made the comments at a academic seminar held by the Taiwan Society, North on the history and theory of Taiwan's national status.

On the question of establishing a sovereign nation of Taiwan, academics at the seminar said the people of Taiwan could establish an independent country through exercising their willpower and such an exercise would be legally binding according to international law.

Li Ming-juinn, a researcher at the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University, said Taiwanese people don't have to rely on international participation to highlight its sovereign status and instead, could resort to exercise their willpower to achieve this goal.

Pan-blues also wary of unification referendum

By Huang Yao-ming

To hold a referendum on whether to join the World Health Organization is to show the will of the Taiwanese people to arrogant China. The pan-blue camp has once again distorted the referendum issue into a "Taiwan-independence referendum." In fact, Taiwan is already a sovereign state. Therefore, a referendum on independence is no longer an issue in Taiwan. There is only a need for a referendum on unification, but the need is not urgent.

China has been treating Taiwan with contempt at international events, insulting it as a "province of China." China has never renounced the use of force against Taiwan. It harbors a repulsive ambition to annex Taiwan. And the chairmen of the KMT and PFP have been echoing China's argument with their "one China" and "inevitable future unification" comments.

If one day there is a showdown, it will take shape as a referendum on unification -- to see how many Taiwanese agree to unification with China -- instead of a superfluous referendum on independence.

China has worked to keep Taiwan out of the UN, and even worked to block Taiwan's entry into the WHO, which involves the health rights of 23 million people. The basis for such action is the claim that "Taiwan is a province of China."

On the basis of self-determination, we can speak via a referendum on WHO entry and let the people of Taiwan express their will as to whether they are willing to become a province of China.

This will also clarify the KMT-PFP definition of the country's status. If the people support Taiwan's entry into the WHO, then it means Taiwan is a sovereign state. Those who keep talking about "future unification" should then be quiet. Otherwise, how could they qualify to run in the presidential election?

The aim of a referendum on WHO entry is an external one (ie the People's Republic of China), not an internal one (partisan wrangling, for example).

Likewise, a referendum on unification is also aimed at China's territorial ambitions on Taiwan. Anyone who identifies with Taiwan should unite and say "no" -- via a referendum on unification -- to Chinese annexation. But this is a countermeasure to be used only when China launches a military attack against Taiwan.

We only want to hold a referendum on WHO entry, and some TV call-in programs and newspaper commentaries are already magnifying it into a "unification-independence" referendum. People like UFO Radio's Jaw Shau-kong have ridiculed President Chen Shui-bian for days, saying Chen wouldn't dare push for a referendum on independence.

In fact, the purpose for holding a referendum on independence no longer exists. Would people like Jaw dare agree to a referendum on unification? If Taiwan will have to unify with China sooner or later, why don't we put an end to the pain earlier by persuading the KMT and PFP lawmakers to pass a referendum law and hold a referendum on unification? Such a referendum would abolish China's hopes of annexing Taiwan. It will also wake up KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong from their "one China" dreams and stop their fantasies about "inevitable unification of China." It will also spare the people of Taiwan from the disturbances over unification and give them the peace of mind they need to focus on the economy.

If 51 percent of the Taiwanese people vote for unification with China and for becoming a province thereof, then I believe the pro-independence people will have the democratic upbringing to accept the results.

To people of Jaw's ilk: how about holding a referendum on unification?

Huang Yao-ming is a board member of the Coconut Tree Foundation.

Timing for referendum suspicious

By Kao Lang

While the Cabinet is assessing the feasibility of holding a consultative referendum along with the presidential election next year and planning to make the final decision in early July, the US has reportedly expressed its concern, a response that has sparked debate from all corners. Now all the voices supporting or opposing this idea are focusing on the referendum itself. Few have discussed the impact of the timing and the choice of topics on the presidential election.

Holding a consultative referendum alongside the presidential election amounts to mixing a vote on persons and a vote on issues. The biggest controversy is that it might affect the fairness of the election. On the surface, the presidential election and the referendum are two different matters. But when they are held together, the atmosphere created by the referendum might sway the election results.

In particular, amid the fierce competition, if a small percentage of voters change their minds due to the atmosphere of a plebiscite, the result of the presidential election might be completely reversed.

So the point of the dispute is, in the absence of a legal basis, there are no objective standards to regulate the timing for holding a referendum. If a referendum is launched hastily, suspicions might be raised that this is this government's electoral strategy in an attempt at unfair competition.

For instance, the two issues for plebiscites proposed and selected by the government are the nation's entry bid into the World Health Organization (WHO) and the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. The outside world has been questioning why only these two topics were chosen. How about issues related to educational reform, the double rise in National Health Insurance fees, plastic bags, the high-speed railway and direct links with China? Why can't these be the plebiscite issues? What are the standards?

The two government-proposed issues for referendums have not undergone a discrete procedure. It is no surprise that the outside world has criticized the government for using public resources to enhance the popularity of a specific candidate. If democracy is really taken into consideration, the selection of issues for plebiscites should tally with democratic procedures. It is inappropriate for the government to decide on its own.

Until now, unfortunately, the Cabinet has never consulted the outside world's opinions as to whether there are other issues to be included on a referendum. We hope that the government can be more democratic in deciding on the issues to be determined by the referendum.

As for the timing for a consultative referendum, it is inappropriate to coincide with the presidential election. In the run-up to the election next year, presidential candidates from all political parties will put forth their campaign platforms, including those on the WHO entry bid and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Through debates, voters will be able to understand the candidates' positions and show their support or opposition at the ballot box.

If the presidential election and the referendum are held together, the referendum issues might be magnified in an unreasonable way, indirectly suppressing other issues and therefore diverting voters' attention. This will narrow the space for discussing other issues.

If the Cabinet picks one or two topics and holds a referendum during the presidential election, suspicions will arise that it is trying to influence the election. Although the results are hard to predict, the fairness of the election will definitely be questioned.

Some might say that there are precedents in other democracies where elections and plebiscites are held together. Since other nations can do it, why can't Taiwan? This argument sounds very reasonable but it neglects one fact -- in other nations, it is practiced on a legal basis. To be included in a referendum agenda, an issue must cross several thresholds to comply with the rigid legal requirements so as to establish the legitimacy of referendums.

For example, a referendum initiated by the public must be endorsed by a certain number of supporters in a signature drive. If the number of supporters is insufficient, the case can not be established. If the referendum is initiated by the government, the matters to be decided in the referendum are already detailed in the Constitution or law. The government must not arbitrarily choose topics for plebiscites.

Whether referendums are launched by the government or the public, they must conform to legal procedures. I've never heard about an instance where, during elections, the government picks a topic or two they prefer and hold a non-binding referendum. Who will believe the argument that this has nothing to do with the presidential election? The government must be careful to avoid such suspicions.

If a referendum law is enacted in Taiwan, disputes about fairness will not arise when the referendum and the presidential election are held together in line with legal conditions.

All in all, there is no doubt that holding referendums is the direct exercise of civil rights. But the problem of fairness should be considered in the selection of issues and timing. Due to unification-independence factors, holding referendums has been a taboo in Taiwan. A referendum law has not been enacted yet. Moreover, the US and China also oppose the practice.

Now since the Cabinet wants to try out a consultative referendum, it should collect opinions from all corners and avoid the sensitive timing of the presidential election. This can highlight the positive significance of referendums and drum up support from society. If the two principles can be held up, I believe the obstacles to a consultative referendum will greatly decrease.

Kao Lang is a professor of political science at National Taiwan University.