|
KMT should heed public’s wishes
Wednesday, Apr 28, 2010, Page 8
The signature campaign for the petition to initiate a referendum on the signing
of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China launched by the
Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) along with 50 other associations is coming along
smoothly. It passed the initial threshold of 86,000 signatures in a very short
time and without waiting for the Central Election Committee’s decision, the
campaign is now proceeding to the second stage, which requires 860,000
signatures.
It is perhaps this development, along with public anger, that has now caused the
government to have a strategic change of heart. First, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義)
said that he “doesn’t oppose referendums,” while Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) added that “the KMT would not object nor
would President Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)].”
Although there are still some reasons to suspect political scheming, this
development is a welcome one. This change shows that the government is aware of
what is going on and that there has been some kind of response.
The government has said it opposes a referendum on the ECFA issue. The official
Web site of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) publicly states, “there are
many ways for public participation. Public meetings and public opinion polls are
feasible options.” However, referendums are not the “only choice” and
“considering international convention and domestic majority support for an ECFA,
there is probably no need to waste national resources by organizing a
referendum.”
Ma and Wu’s public statements against a referendum are too numerous to record
here. The fact is that Ma has never agreed to hold a referendum on the proposed
ECFA.
Judging from the government’s frequent insincerity, it would be meaningless to
try to find out why Wu and King are lying. However, it would be worth
investigating what kind of ECFA referendum the KMT does not object to. King has
set the tone for this issue by saying the KMT would not object to a referendum
if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) still insisted on one after the
legislature has reviewed the agreement. Based on the DPP’s original insistence
on a referendum, this means that the KMT would object if Taiwan’s citizenry had
first demanded a referendum on an ECFA and that the result of that referendum
would decide if the people would authorize the government to negotiate an ECFA.
This is not only arrogant, but also an unambiguous violation of the Referendum
Act (公民投票法).
The wounds caused by the KMT government signing the beef import protocol with
the US in August last year are still felt. Although the referendum proposal
launched by the Consumers’ Foundation already passed the first threshold and the
legislature banned the import of cow organs, the government still inked the
protocol with the US. This is not only harmful to Taiwan’s international
reputation, but the remedial measures are also insufficient, as the US has
declared that it will export beef tongues and testes to Taiwan.
Even worse, the government accepts no blame. The health minister even suggested
that people could choose not to eat these products and the economic minister
said in the legislature that such beef parts were legal. These people are
crossing their fingers and asking us to hope for the best. This is proof that
the government is incapable of carrying out international negotiations and
defending the rights of the Taiwanese public. And then the KMT still has the
gall to say that it will sign an ECFA agreement with China before putting it to
the legislature?
The ECFA referendum is a serious issue that involves both Taiwan’s sovereignty
and legal issues and politicians must not be allowed to interfere. The
Referendum Act clearly states that: “For the national referendum, this Act shall
apply to the following matters: 1) Referendum of laws; 2) Initiative of
legislative principles; 3) Initiative or referendum of important policies.” It
is not difficult to see how despotic and reactionary the government is on this
issue when it suggests the DPP could initiate a referendum if it’s still not
happy after the ECFA has been reviewed by the legislature.
Some opinion polls show that 70 percent of respondents agree that the proposed
ECFA should be put to a referendum. Ma likes to repeat that no free-trade
agreement (FTA) in the world has been submitted to a referendum before being
signed, but in fact many countries participating in the economic integration of
the EU have put the issue of participation to a referendum. Ma argues that the
FTAs signed by the previous DPP government with five other countries weren’t
agreed to by the public in a referendum either. Those FTAs, however, were signed
by the leaders of the countries concerned and the Taiwanese president. Can the
same be said about a trade pact with China, whose leaders do not recognize the
Taiwanese government?
What other countries in the world make it a mission to sign an FTA with a
country that has 1,500 missiles pointing at it? And what other country seeks to
ink an FTA on a condition similar to the idea that “everything can be discussed
under a ‘one China’ principle?” Is that the case of ASEAN Plus One (China)?
Ma must give serious thought to using a referendum to resolve opposition. If the
referendum results in an endorsement of an ECFA, those opposed to an ECFA must
of course accept the result. However, if Ma is concerned that the referendum
might not pass, he should spend more time convincing the public and wait until
there is consensus before discussing the issue again.
There is of course a big risk that the government will sign the proposed ECFA in
the same way it forced through the signing of the US beef protocol. Let’s not
forget that the beef debacle was followed by a series of KMT electoral defeats.
Furthermore, the referendum on the US beef issue is still in process.
If the government does the same with an ECFA and rushes to sign it before a
referendum is held, it will only anger the public even more and make the
situation worse. We can easily imagine where that would leave the KMT.
|
