Committee votes
against TSU referendum proposal
VOTED DOWN: Kuo Lin-yung, one of the four
members in favor, said he supported it because the committee must ¡¥help people
realize their rights to have plebiscites¡¦
By Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff Reporter
The Referendum Review Committee
last night discusses a referendum proposal by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU)
on abolishing the committee.
Photo: Taipei Times
The Referendum Review Committee last night
turned down a referendum proposal by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) on
abolishing the committee by a vote of four in favor to nine opposed, with one
abstention.
The TSU submitted the proposal endorsed by more than 94,000 citizens in response
to the committee¡¦s three consecutive rejections of referendum proposals
initiated by the party on the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework
Agreement (ECFA) between 2009 and last year.
Citing as a rationale the committee¡¦s restriction of the public¡¦s right to let
its voice be heard through plebiscites, the TSU requested a referendum on the
question: ¡§Do you agree that the Executive Yuan Referendum Review Committee, set
up in accordance with the Referendum Act (¤½¥Á§ë²¼ªk), should continue to exist?¡¨
On Nov. 16, the TSU handed the referendum request to the Central Election
Commission for review. The commission handed the file over to the Referendum
Review Committee, which was to decide whether the proposal met the legal
requirements.
After a two-hour deliberation, the proposal was rejected for two reasons,
committee chairman Chao Yung-mao (»¯¥ÃZ) said.
The committee saw no conflict of interest in the committee deciding whether to
approve the proposal or not, Chao said.
¡§According to Council of Grand Justices Interpretation No. 601,
conflict-of-interest rules apply to individual public servants and not
government organs,¡¨ he said.
Secondly, the proposal was tantamount to a ¡§referendum of laws,¡¨ which means
that you have to oppose the law, in this case the Referendum Act, to initiate
the proposal, Chao said.
Chao said the question should have been: ¡§Do you oppose the Executive Yuan¡¦s
Referendum Review Committee, set up in accordance with the Referendum Act?¡¨
Kuo Lin-yung (³¢ªL«i), one of the four members in favor of the proposal, said he
supported the initiative because the committee must ¡§help people realize their
rights to have plebiscites as long as they have collected sufficient
endorsements¡¨ as required by the act.
¡§Those who opposed the proposal interpreted the act in a strict way, which I
disagree with. Although the question was put in a positive tense, the TSU
clearly stated that it opposes the committee,¡¨ Kuo said.
Another supporter of the proposal, Chi Chun-chen (¬ö«T¦Ú), a political science
professor at Tunghai University, said the proposal met all the requirements to
initiate a plebiscite on a ¡§referendum of laws.¡¨
According to Article 2 of the Referendum Act, a ¡§referendum of laws¡¨ is one of
the matters that the act applies to, Chi said.
¡§It¡¦s true that the TSU did not put the question well, but it was still a
classical case of a ¡¥referendum of laws.¡¦ There was no reason to reject it,¡¨ he
said.
In response, TSU Chairman Huang Kun-huei (¶À©ø½÷) said last night that it was
¡§unacceptable¡¨ that members of the committee voted on the case because of the
conflict of interest. The second reason given by the committee was just an
excuse for its anti-democracy mindset, he said.
|