A Referendum on US Beef: The Ultimate Victim will be The Public

A Referendum on US Beef: The Ultimate Victim will be The Public
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 13, 2010

The Executive Yuan Referendum Commission has approved a Consumers' Foundation request for a referendum on US beef imports. The foundation will soon begin its second phase signature drive. This is the first time private individuals have initiated a referendum since the referendum process was opened up. We have already expressed our views on the matter. A referendum is unnecessary. A referendum is far from urgent. So why the relentless demand for such a referendum? The underlying reasons deserve examination.

The referendum states, "We demand that the Department of Health reinitiate talks with the United States regarding its November 2009 relaxing of restrictions on the importation of bone-in beef, ground beef, beef organ meats, and beef bone marrow less than 30 months old." When the Legislative Yuan passed its amendment to the Food Sanitation Management Law, this referendum's key demands had already been met. The resumption of talks over US beef imports was already a foregone conclusion. By the time the second phase signature drive nears completion, Taipei and Washington will already have restarted talks. This particular referendum will be utterly pointless. In terms of beef parts, bone-in beef is not a high-risk item. Beef industry importers are not really interested in it. The referendum is pointless and out of date. So why the stubborn insistence on holding it? Why the deetermination to overcome cumbersome procedural hurdles merely to see the referendum through? Three reasons come to mind.

The first is to send Washington a message. The second is to send the government a message. The third is to hold a referendum merely for the sake of holding a referendum.

If the point of the referendum is to send a message to Washington, we don't really see the point. Relations between Taipei and Washington have been negatively impacted by the US beef imports controversy. In principle, whether the Republic of China government has the approval of its citizens is a domestic affair. But if a protocol signed with a foreign nation is overturned by legislative means, that is an international affair. We are in the wrong. Even if the referendum passes, it will only prove that the protocol signed by the government does not meet with the approval of the public. It doesn't change the fact that we are still in the wrong. Using a referendum to send a message to Washington serves no useful purpose, other than letting off a little steam. Relations between Taipei and Washington have already been negatively impacted by the legislature's amendment of the law. Do we really wish to persist in anti-American populism to the bitter end? If we allow populist sentiment to get out of hand, undermining undermine Taipei/Washington relations, who will be the losers? The importation of bone-in beef is the only remaining issue. Is it really worth destroying Taipei/Washington relations over? This hardly seems like a wise decision. Even if the referendum passes, it proves nothing. It will merely lead to intensified diplomatic confrontation between Taipei and Washington. If on the other hand, the referendum fails to pass, it will prove that the Legislative Yuan's amendment of the law did not meet with public expectations. Does the Consumers' Foundation really want to shoot itself in the foot this way?

If the point of the referendum is to send a message to the government, that is equally incomprehensible. Haven't we learned our lesson from the Legislative Yuan's amendment of the law? Is the point of the referendum to teach the legislature a lesson? Is it to protest the legislature's failure to ban bone-in beef? If so, we are concerned that those behind the referendum are utterly intolerant of the slightest disagreement and unwilling to make the tiniest compromise. The Consumers' Foundation does not seem to fit this description. It has long been a highly professional consumer advocacy group. Such an obstinate and imperious attitude is irrrational and unrepresentative of the interests of consumers. It will merely leave the impression that those promoting the referendum have hidden political agendas.

The referendum process allows the public to express its opinions on matters of policy. It is a supplement that addresses inadequacies in the legislative process. It should not be used to "teach the government a lesson." It should not be used to further anyone's private agenda. The Consumers' Foundation said it would not allow political forces to take part in the signature drive. But if the referendum process is purely for the sake of "teaching the government a lesson," and not for any substantive policy purposes, it will be hard to determine whether it contains any political agendas. It will be hard to avoid undermining the hard-won reputation of the Consumers' Foundation for professionalism and impartiality.

If the referendum is being held merely for the sake of holding a referendum, without rhyme or reason. If it is being held for political rather than professional reasons, we needn't waste too much ink on it. The Consumers' Foundation raised a consumer rights issue. It convinced the legislature to amend the law. It made use of checks and balances in representative politics. This referendum has become redundant. If the Consumers' Foundation is demanding a referendum purely for the sake of holding a referendum, it will undermine its own credibility. Worse, it will undermine the credibility of the referendum process. It will retard the Republic of China's political maturation.

The legal threshold for U.S. Beef Referendum is high. Meeting it will be difficult. One can try to link it with the general election. But that won't ensure its passage. It may even substantiate allegations of hidden political agendas. The referendum is unlikely to pass. Concrete results from the referendum are a long way off. We urge its backers to cease and desist. Our main concern is the dark shadow of populist demagoguery undermining Taipei/Washington relations and the credibility of the Consumers' Foundation. The ultimate victims will be Republic of China citizens.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.01.13
社論－推動美牛公投 最終受害者是人民
本報訊

行政院公投審議委員會通過消基會提出的美牛公投案，消基會即將展開第二階段連署。對於台灣開放公投以來第一次由民間發動的公投，其必要性乃至急迫性何在，我們已經表達看法；為什麼繼續推動此項公投？其背後的現象也值得仔細思索。

正要進行連署的公投案內容是「要求否決衛生署在九十八年十一月開放美國卅月齡以下帶骨牛肉、絞肉、牛內臟、牛脊髓之政策，重啟美國牛肉輸台議定書談判」。眾所週知，當立法院通過修正食品衛生管理法與相關附帶決議之後，此一公投案的主要訴求，都已實現；其中美國牛肉輸台議定重啟談判，已成定局，而且應係在公投案連署階段完成之前，台美之間業已重新進行談判，此一公投案已乏實質意義。若從其針對的美國牛肉部位來看，亦只有帶骨牛肉一項，並非風險部位，也非業者進口主要興趣所在，那麼為什麼要將此一缺乏實質益處且已超過時間效益的提案，不辭程序繁複地交付公投呢？此中可能的背景目標可能有三。

第一，是為了要向華盛頓示威。第二，是為了要向政府示威。第三，是為要公投而公投。我們不妨分析一下，這三個可能究竟何者為是。

如果說是要向華盛頓示威而進行公投，我們看不出此中真正的用意何在。台美因美牛進口而關係生變，從道理上說，台灣的政府是否符合民意的期待，是台灣內部的事，將已經簽署的議定書用立法加以推翻，就外部關係而言，理虧在台灣。即使公投通過，也只不過證明政府簽署的議定書不符合民意，卻仍不能改變台灣理虧的態勢，用公投向美國示威，除了情緒發洩之外，亦無實益。台灣與美國之間的關係，因為立法院的修法已經生變，還需無限上綱地繼續民粹反美到底嗎？用民粹破壞台美關係以致不可收拾，受害者是誰？相對於進口帶骨牛肉的剩餘議題，值得用捐棄整體台美關係做為代價嗎？似乎不待智者而後決。公投案通過，並不能更加證明什麼，卻會招致更多更難的台美外交對峙；公投案不能通過，反而證明立法院的修法並不符合真正的民意，難道消基會想要證明這道理嗎？

如果是為了要向政府示威而進行公投，也難以理解。立法院修法給政府的教訓還不夠嗎？進行公投，是想用來教訓立法院的修法草案為何不包含帶骨牛肉嗎？真是如此，我們有點擔心此公投案背後，帶有某種絲毫不能寬容些許任何歧異或妥協的專橫，似乎不符合消基會如此一個專業的消費者團體一向的正面形象。這種睚眥必究、非如此不可的態度，既不理性，也不能真正代表消費大眾的利益，反而會予人一種私心自用的擔心。

公民投票是用來表達政策民意、補充立法不足的民主機制，不該是用來教訓政府或是任何人以逞快意的工具。消基會雖然表示拒絕政治勢力進入此次公投案的連署，但是如果公投案進行只是為了一逞教訓政府的快意而乏任何政策實益，將會很難解釋此中有無政治糾葛，也難免壞了消基會長久累積的專業公正形象。

至於為了公投而公投，其中的不理性乃至政治性過高而專業性缺乏的道理，也就不待費詞了。消基會提出消費者的議題，成功地帶動了立法院的修法，已經使得用來制衡代議政治的公民投票在此議題上成為多餘，為了公投而公投，如果成了消基會說不出口的訴求，既會傷害消基會的專業信用，也會傷害公民投票的制度信用，更會傷害台灣的民主發展。

坦率言之，美牛公投案如果要達到法定的通過門檻，難度極大；如果要與大選綁在一起，不但未必能夠通過，還會坐實了背後帶有政治算計的指控。對於這一起通過機會不大而且兌現時間還遠的公投案，我們苦口婆心地提出勸告，主要的擔心在於此中夾雜著揮之不去的民粹陰影，可能會反過來灼傷消基會的信譽與台美關係，最終的受害者，仍舊是台灣人民。