Only Changes to Plebiscite Theme Could TSU Stop ECFA

Commentary

Only Changes to Plebiscite Theme Could TSU Stop ECFA

By C. V. Chen

Source: United Daily News
May 26, 2010

As one of the people’s rights safeguarded by the Constitution, direct democracy functions to supplement certain inadequacies of representative democracy. However, the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s (TSU) petition for a plebiscite on the proposed cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) would harm the people’s right to exert direct democracy.

In accordance with the Plebiscite Act, the only legal consequence of the failure of a plebiscite is that “another plebiscite on the same subject may not be initiated within three years,” and it would have no substantive effect to compel the government to take, or not to take, any course of action. The TSU proposed theme reads: “Do you agree that the government should sign an ECFA with China?” There will be two results of such a plebiscite:

If the plebiscite passes, of course the government can sign the ECFA; if the plebiscite fails to pass, the government can still sign the ECFA and people would not be able to propose another ECFA plebiscite petition for three years. If the TSU really wanted to stop the ECFA, it should have proposed the following theme: “Do you agree that the government should stop negotiating an ECFA with Mainland China?” Or in the event that an ECFA has already been signed, “Do you agree it should be declared null and void?” Isn’t that much simpler and more direct?

In fact, the TSU chose a theme in favor of signing an ECFA instead of opposing it. That is because the TSU understands that the threshold to pass a plebiscite is quite high, and only failure to pass a plebiscite in favor of signing an ECFA would demonstrate opposition to the ECFA, the TSU’s clear position.

Using this logic, every minority opinion group in our society will be willing to initiate a plebiscite against its true position in an attempt to justify its real demands. For instance, suppose an anti-death penalty group proposed a plebiscite with the theme, asking “Do you agree that the government should retain the death penalty?” and it eventually failed to pass. In this way, the anti-death penalty group could claim that “the government should abolish the death penalty since the failure of the plebiscite proved the people’s opposition to the death penalty.” However, this writer believes that the people of Taiwan will not accept such logic, and it also contradicts the principle of majority rule in a democracy.

In order to solve the aforementioned contradiction, we should demand that the theme for a referendum should be opposition to an important government policy. If such a plebiscite passes, the government should stop implementing the policy involved. That would make sense.

Let’s talk about another problem in the TSU plebiscite petition. The contradiction between the initiators’ position and their proposed theme violates Article 14 of the Plebiscite Act. 

The TSU proposed theme has included the word “agree” while the TSU stressed the negative effects of an ECFA in its explanatory statement for proposing the plebiscite petition to show its opposition in nature. Obviously, the TSU proposed theme is in a fundamental contradiction to its statement, which may likely confuse voters as to tell what the TSU in fact wants.

This writer recommends that the Plebiscite Review Committee reject the TSU’s petition unless the TSU proposed theme corresponds with its own true position or, at least, with its explanatory statement for proposing such a plebiscite.

Do the people who trust the TSU really understand that signing the plebiscite petition will not have a substantive effect lawfully? Do they understand that in accordance with the existing debate rule, the initiators of a plebiscite petition should argue in favor of the proposed topic, which means that they have petitioned for a pro-ECFA plebiscite? Is this really the way to show respect for the public opinion by urging a group of people against the ECFA to endorse a pro-ECFA plebiscite?

Attachment : none