As expected, the Referendum Review Committee rejected a Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) proposal for a referendum on ECFA late Thursday night:
The Executive Yuan’s Referendum Review Committee on Thursday night voted 12-4 against an opposition-supported referendum proposal asking voters whether they agreed that the government should sign an ECFA with China. The committee said the question did not fall under what was allowed under the Referendum Act (公民投票法).The article goes on to point out that the Obama Administration believes the referendum would be a setback for ECFA, which it supports. David Reid of David on Formosa had a great post on the defeat of the referendum proposal -- read the whole thing -- it's ever so much better than I could have produced. Here's a taste:
Both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) assailed the decision and raised concerns of interference by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government.
Minutes after the decision was announced, the TSU — which initiated the referendum proposal — released a sternly worded statement saying that the committee’s decision went against the Constitution.
“The verdict is completely unacceptable,” TSU Chairperson Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) said. “The committee’s reasons for rejecting the proposal are unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional.”
The ability of citizens in Taiwan to initiate a referendum was already restricted by the “birdcage” 2003 Referendum Law. The law imposes an unfairly high threshold of votes which means a referendum vote can be blocked by a boycott of voters even if the total number of votes in favour exceeds 50 percent.The DPP and TSU will continue to push for a referendum on ECFA. But the KMT's strategy is to keep the deal out of genuine democratic, public oversight, so it is unlikely that we will see a referendum on the most important political deal in the island's history.For example, in the referendums held in conjunction with the 2008 presidential election the vote was overwhelming in favor but the referendums failed to pass because they didn’t meet the threshold. There were 5,881,589 valid votes cast for the question whether Taiwan should join the UN as Taiwan and 94.01% voted yes. On the question of whether Taiwan should return to the UN using the “Republic of China”, ”Taiwan” or some other name there were 5,686,369 valid votes cast with 87.27% in favor (Wikipedia). Remember the latter question was proposed by the KMT who later boycotted the very same referendum. Hence the current law effectively means that the team that boycotts or forfeits gets awarded the win. It is fundamentally unfair.
The TSU is now planning another referendum initiative to abolish the Referendum Review Committee. It is clear that the review process is flawed and easily manipulated by partisan interests. However, the resources of the TSU and other civil society groups promoting referendums are limited. They must think carefully about the strategy that they take to further promote the use of referendums by Taiwan’s citizens.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
17 comments:
What's the point? You can't hold a referendum until people know the contents on an ECFA, otherwise they have nothing to base their vote on. You won't know the contents until after it's signed (and before it passes the legislature) because the negotiations are necessarily confidential. Calling for referendum now is simply partisan politicking and has nothing to do with what's best for the country.
Wait until it's signed, review it and then call for a referendum if necessary.
Alternatively, wait until 2012 and if people are against ECFA then, the DPP will easily gain a majority and pull out of the agreement or renegotiate it. NBD.
Calling for referendum now is simply partisan politicking and has nothing to do with what's best for the country.
It's just partisan politicking. That's why majorities in both Blue and Green polls support it.
ECFA too is pro-China partisan politicking.
Thanks for the kind words. Although you can and do write much better analysis than me on a regular basis.
You won't know the contents until after it's signed (and before it passes the legislature) because the negotiations are necessarily confidential.
Have you asked yourself why the "negotiations are necessarily confidential"? What other countries negotiate economic agreements and keep them secret from their citizens? Better yet, please explain why these negotiations are "necessarily confidential"!
@Anon 3.03pm - SOP in negotiating is that you don't tip your hand to the other side in advance. During negotiations, publicizing it to one's own citizens is the same as telling the other country what's up your sleeve. Probably every bilateral trade agreement ever signed by any country has followed the same process, so why should Taiwan and China be any different?
Probably every bilateral trade agreement ever signed by any country has followed the same process, so why should Taiwan and China be any different?
Perhaps one reason there should be a difference is that no agreement with China is purely an economic agreement, especially ECFA, if one is to believe the words of China's leaders.
As for the necessity of secrecy, perhaps you should follow more recent developments in balancing the need for negotiating secretly with the public's right to know. You might find this link to be of some interest: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4099448
Oh, and what about the European countries that had referendums to decide whether or not to join the EU?
You won't know the contents until after it's signed (and before it passes the legislature) because the negotiations are necessarily confidential.
Hmm, of the past economic agreements made under the Ma government, has there been actual due process and then ratification by the legislature? Perhaps you are privy to some secret proceedings in the Legislative Yuan that passed under the radar of Taiwan's overzealous media.
Oh, and what about the European countries that had referendums to decide whether or not to join the EU?
Apples and oranges.
Joining the EU is joining a regional political grouping. Taiwan isn't doing that, it's negotiating an economic agreement. Big difference.
Hmm, of the past economic agreements made under the Ma government, has there been actual due process and then ratification by the legislature?
What economic agreements are you talking about? I don't think there have been any signed since Ma came to power, as his 2008 campaign platform was to fix cross-strait relations first. So far that's proceeding well, and as a result talks are under way with other countries that had stalled under the DPP.
"Apples and oranges.
Joining the EU is joining a regional political grouping. Taiwan isn't doing that, it's negotiating an economic agreement. Big difference."
I will not be buying many apples or oranges from you as you seem a bit confused on what is what.
According to Wikipedia "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states,[7] located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities.[8] With over 500 million citizens,[9] the EU combined generated an estimated 28% share (US$ 16.5 trillion) of the nominal and about 21% (US$14.8 trillion) of the PPP gross world product in 2009.[10]
The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital.[11] It maintains common policies on trade,[12] agriculture, fisheries[13] and regional development.[14]"
The premise of your argument here is invalid.
What economic agreements are you talking about?
You could start with this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/taiwan/3377847/China-and-Taiwan-sign-trade-agreements.html
Then you could use Google and find over 90 others signed with China in two years......
Meanwhile, perhaps you could actually provide some facts to substantiate this claim. "So far that's proceeding well, and as a result talks are under way with other countries that had stalled under the DPP." What countries are you talking about?
Anon 10.20 - The key point being political. EU is much more than an economic or trade agreement. ECFA is only economic not political. Taiwan is not negotiating to (re)unite with China, or have a single currency, or free movement of people, or a parliament etc.
Anon 10.34 - My bad, I thought you meant with countries other than China. The negotiation process with China is still ongoing.
As for the other point, look at the English-language press in Taiwan from a couple of weeks ago. Mentioned was a restart of negotiations with Singapore amongst others.
"Taiwan is not negotiating to (re)unite with China, or have a single currency, or free movement of people, or a parliament etc."
Apparently you are unaware of the fact that many people in Taiwan are upset because EFCA certainly is going to amount to more than an economic agreement. If I am not incorrect, on this very blog there are links to China's leaders saying that ECFA is the first step to unification. Add to this the fact that many livelihoods are at stake, and you may begin to understand the support by both blues and greens for a referendum.
I am not sure where you are located, but it seems you do not have a pulse on what is actual reality on the ground in Taiwan. Rather than just reading something like the China Post, it might be wise to also check the Taipei Times and Taiwan News. In this way you can get a more balanced view of the situation, and you can start exercising your ability to ferret out reality.
As for the other point, look at the English-language press in Taiwan from a couple of weeks ago. Mentioned was a restart of negotiations with Singapore amongst others.
Thanks, this is the first time in in this discussion that you have actually offered a fact rather than an unsubstantiated opinion. But, then, it was made easy for you, LOL.
Still, what is your take on these talks going well when Beijing throws in monkey wrenches like this:
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2010/06/ma-we-need-ecfa-for-other-ftas-beijing.html
Rather than just reading something like the China Post, it might be wise to also check the Taipei Times and Taiwan News
ROFL. The Taipei Times and Taiwan News are just as error-ridden and biased as the China Post.
Anonymous ppl grow some balls and post a name.
@taiwanews said...
Anonymous ppl grow some balls and post a name.
@taiwanews, thanks for your rather ungentlemanly and somewhat crudely stated opinion on posting anonymously.
Unfortunately, if I express my somewhat extreme ideas on TI with my usual online identity I would be putting my livelihood on the line. If I create another identity that would be more fictitious than posting anonymously.
Your logic that each poster should use an ID reminds me of China's proposed laws that all posters and blogs must use real names. That of course is an extremely effective way to reduce any criticism of that regime.
With your mindset presented here, it would not be a great leap of logic to assume that you may be a likely candidate for a job with China's Internet censors.
If Michael states that only posts with IDs are permissible, I will honor his decision. Until then, I won't respect your attempt to impose rules on this forum.
Post a Comment