In the run up to yesterday’s debate on the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party, (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), both parties looked to score political points. The DPP accused the Ma administration of not unveiling the details of ECFA negotiations to the DPP, putting Tsai at a disadvantage for the debate. The DPP also discarded the open documents provided by the Ministry of Economics as being worthless. For its part, the KMT argued, since negotiations are still ongoing, sensitive items and the bottom line should not be released for the sake of debate.
The Ma government, instead, urged the DPP to come up with an effective alternative proposal to the ECFA. In addition to political wrangling and rhetoric, the KMT further floated a trial balloon by arguing that it never opposed a referendum on the ECFA in accordance with the law and denied that the government had changed its stance on holding referendums. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) stated that the Ma government would accept an ECFA referendum after the legislature completes its ECFA review.
The KMT about-face on an ECFA referendum illustrated nothing but political calculation because Ma has said on numerous occasions before that a referendum on an ECFA was unnecessary for a simple reason — it would not touch upon political issues. In any advanced democracy, holding a referendum on major public policy is a demonstration of direct and democratic participation by the public on key decision-making processes.
Unfortunately, referendums have often been considered as a political weapon that could be used to promote self-determination and de jure Taiwan independence. While they have become more conceptually acceptable to the public as a democratic instrument in recent years following the passage of the Referendum Act in 2003 and four subsequent referendums, it is unfortunate that the KMT has used referendums more as political tools. Moreover, the KMT has long been a destructive element when it comes to the implementation of such a democratic mechanism in Taiwan politics.
To counteract former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) maneuvering for a referendum in his reelection bid in 2003, the KMT passed the Referendum Act in the Legislative Yuan setting a very high threshold for initiatiating a referendum. However, Chen found a loophole in Article 17 of the law by launching the first-ever “defensive referendum” along with the presidential election in 2004. The KMT obstructed the referendum and violated the democratic principle of people’s freedom of choice by calling for its supporters not to cast referendum ballots.
In 2007 and 2008, the Chen administration introduced two more referendums, including one on using the name Taiwan to apply for full membership in the UN. Despite tremendous pressure from the US, then-KMT presidential candidate Ma came up with his own version of holding a referendum for the Republic of China to “return” to the UN. Nevertheless, the real intention was not to promote the idea of referendums, but rather to derail the DPP’s referendum momentum.
Only in one rare exception did the KMT endorse a referendum — on allowing casinos on the offshore island of Penghu — a proposition residents rejected. In the face of the ongoing signature-collecting drive against the ECFA, launched primarily by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), the DPP and other social groups, the Ma administration tried to downplay the potential effect of the ECFA referendum by sending a signal that it won’t oppose the referendum move, only to block the opposition’s attempt to hold a referendum by using administrative means and its legislative majority.
Therefore, the KMT-dominated congress vetoed two proposals submitted by the DPP on establishing an independent committee to review the ECFA, as well as an ECFA referendum before signing. The KMT’s strategy is clear: Buy more time to sign the ECFA and take advantage of its legislative majority to accept the economic pact. Unless the opposition-led ECFA referendum drive can reach the threshold of initiating a referendum to veto the legislative review, Ma will fulfill his goal.
To minimize the potential challenge from Tsai in the debate, Ma and the KMT have adopted an ambiguous position on accepting an ECFA referendum. It might serve their own interests, but further sabotage Taiwan’s democratic progress.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS