|
Committee should not muzzle public
Wednesday, Jun 02, 2010, Page 8
In a democracy, public servants — by definition — are
employees hired by taxpayers to serve public interests. They exist as agents to
attend to the collective concerns of the people, not the other way around, such
as acting in their own interests, hijacking the people’s rights and deciding for
the people what they can ask the civil service to do and not to do.
Such absurdity appears to be brewing in Taiwan as an appeal petitioned by about
200,000 people is now on the brink of being rejected by a handful of public
servants who are supposed to serve them, thanks to the birdcage Referendum Act
(公民投票法), which is known for its unreasonably high threshold needed to launch a
referendum drive and the establishment of a so-called Referendum Review
Committee that screens people’s voices.
The Referendum Act stipulates that a referendum proposal, after completing the
first stage of collecting signatures from 0.5 percent of eligible voters in the
last presidential election, must obtain approval from the Referendum Review
Committee before it can proceed to the next stage of collecting signatures from
5 percent of that same number. It must then pass a second review before making
it to the polling stations.
In accordance with the law, the Executive Yuan’s 21-member Referendum Review
Committee is slated to meet tomorrow and decide whether a proposed question put
forward by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) on the government’s planned trade
pact with China conforms to the requirements for a valid referendum proposal.
Citing anonymous sources, local media yesterday reported that the committee, in
line with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) stance on the planned cross-strait
trade pact, is likely to reject the TSU’s proposed referendum, which asks the
question: “Do you agree that the government should sign an economic cooperation
framework agreement (ECFA) with China?”
Leading up to tomorrow’s committee meeting, there has also been a media report
quoting anonymous sources from the Ma administration and the Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) as saying that China has privately expressed its views to Taiwan on
the proposed ECFA referendum, saying that holding such a public vote would have
“impacts on cross-strait developments.”
While it comes as no surprise that authoritarian China dislikes the people
having their voices heard, it would be an utter sham on the part of the Ma
administration if it were to toe Beijing’s line and reject the TSU’s proposed
referendum. It would be equally despicable if the Referendum Review Committee
likewise toes Ma’s political line and chooses to rebuff the voices of the
200,000 people its members serve.
Ma himself has praised Taiwan’s democracy many times; what better way to
demonstrate Taiwan’s democracy than having its citizens take part in developing
national policy through a direct vote? After all, what is the Ma administration
afraid of? If an ECFA with Beijing were indeed as beneficial as Ma and his
government officials say, wouldn’t a referendum on the planned pact serve as a
great opportunity for Ma to prove himself correct and his critics wrong?
All eyes are now on the Referendum Review Committee and it is to be hoped that
the committee will act in the interests of the public rather than working to
muzzle people’s voices and leave a stain on the nation’s record in consolidating
its democracy.
|
