Taiwan's seventh attempt to join the World Health Organiza-tion (WHO) has been shot down by China's political interference. The opposition's reaction to the World Health Assembly's (WHA) decision to exclude Taiwan's bid for observer status from its agenda was shameful.
The government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs all condemned Beijing's duplicity. While intentionally blocking Taiwan's bid for participation in the WHO, Beijing publicly lied to the WHA that it has lent a helping hand to Taiwan. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) even proposed a referendum on whether Taiwan should be allowed into the WHO in order to display to the world the determination of the country to join the global health network.
Pan-blue leaders have sneered at Chen's suggestion. While accusing Beijing of "unwisely" blocking Taiwan's bid for the WHO, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) poured cold water on the plebiscite idea, saying that a referendum wasn't necessary be-cause it "politicizes the issue." PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) argued that "to support Taiwan's bid for the WHO is like eating -- there is no need to hold a referendum to decide if one is hungry."
Pan-blue legislators further implied that Chen is trying to distract public attention away from the government's poor handling of the SARS epidemic.
These arguments are baseless and prove only that the Lien-Soong ticket is against the will of Taiwan's 23 million people.
First, it is Beijing that has been politicizing Taipei's participation in the WHO. China's foreign ministry has reiterated that "Taiwan, as a province of China, is not entitled to join the WHO or participate in any capacity." Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi (吳儀) shed crocodile tears and lied to the world about how much concern and assistance it has shown to Taiwan.
Taiwan has been trying to avoid political controversy with its WTO bid by seeking observer status as a "health entity," not as a sovereign state. The WTO recognizes it as an "economic entity." At international tuna-management conferences, it is a "fishing entity." What the public wants is participation. There is no justifiable reason to deny Taiwan a constructive role in the world health system.
Second, participation in the WHO is not as simple as eating a meal. Most people in Taiwan, including ruling and opposition parties, agree Taiwan should not be excluded from the world health system. What separates the pan-green and pan-blue camps is the strategy to reach such a goal. The Chen administration has been trying to downplay the WHO bid to the level of pure health concerns. What better alternative has the opposition offered?
What scares the pan-blue camp about referendums is the possibility of "creeping" independence. They are afraid that the DPP might use a referendum law as a tool to hold a plebiscite and decide the country's future. Such a mentality tends to politicize the issue and falls into the unification-independence dichotomy.
In any advanced democracy, the right to health and to hold a referendum are fundamental rights and the significance of a referendum would be to create a consensus and clearly express the public's resolve.
If the opposition is worried about the trouble the referendum might create in terms sensitive issues such as national identity or relations with China, they could work with the DPP to clearly define the agenda of the referendum. A referendum law could likely limit its scope to local issues or non-political issues. If an official referendum is not available, there should be room for consultative referendums. The opposition must have justifiable reasons to convince people why they can not exercise such unalienable rights.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,