On a proposal by consumer groups to hold a referendum on whether the government should start renegotiations with the US, Wu said this should be regarded as “a last resort,” to be used when other measures are exhausted.I would agree that a referendum on restarting negotiations with the US over the beef issue is not the best use of such an expensive democratic mechanism but I do not agree that "we should avoid them unless it is absolutely necessary". In the case of the Suhua Highway for example I would argue that, like the successful Penghu referendum on casinos, this a good example of a situation where a referendum of Hualien residents would be a good way to determine the way forward.
“Referendums are not forbidden and no one has the right to obstruct a referendum. But we should avoid them unless it is absolutely necessary,” Wu said.
If lawmakers reach a consensus on the Act to incorporate articles to ensure the safety of US beef imports and relieve public concerns about the products, it would not be necessary to put the issue to a referendum, he said.
In Wu's remarks I think lie the KMT's instinctive fear and contempt for direct votes and plebicites whose results are not as easy to predict or manage as election results. Also, the practice of referendums has become popular in Taiwan since the 2003 law facilitating them (despite its huge obstacles to having them passed). If Taiwanese get in the practice of deciding big issues by referendum, they will demand a referendum for those policies or international agreements that they perceive to have a potentially big impact upon their lives. This means that they could demand a referendum for ECFA or a peace treaty, not a prospect either the KMT or CCP wish as the wind is against them in terms of public enthusiasm for more opening to China and all but official annexation through a peace treaty based on a one chine principle. Hence the KMT demarcating the ECFA as economic and not political (what? we can't have referendums on economic issues?) and saying that an ECFA will pass when it has 60% approval as defined by a few MAC opinion polls. The problem here is that whereas the KMT and MAC state ECFA support at around 50%, by literally ignoring the 'don't knows' and 'undecideds', they can claim a figure of support at high 50% and opposition at 20-30%. Thus, the Government prefers polls that it can better manipulate to show the results they want rather than an all out open vote on the issue which might not pass given the deliberately high threshold requirements set by the 2003 Referendum Law.
So watch out as the time for signing the ECFA nears for the Government claiming that more and more polls show the magical 60% public support Premier Wu set as a condition. What won't happen is that the ECFA will be put to a referendum since if the DPP boycott the vote (as the KMT did for referendums in 2004 and 2008) it is highly unlikely that it will pass.
If the Government pulls the ECFA out of the 'black box' and fully informs the public about its content and allows a full debate they could convince enough people to pass the referendum but I suspect they do not wish such a
