On April 10, the Taiwan Plebiscite Ac-tion Committee (TPAC) began an 11-day hunger strike to push for the adoption of plebiscite legislation. The strike came to an end when the Legislative Yuan agreed to place plebiscite legislation on this year's legislative agenda.

Although the issue has been placed on the legislative agenda, there is still much debate over whether a plebiscite law will have any meaning for Taiwan's society, and whether Taiwan needs such a law at this stage in its development.

On April 11, a group of nearly 20 people, including legislators Trong Chai, Shen Fu-hsiung and Chen Chao-nan, in addition to Huang Chao-nan, chairman of the Taiwan Independence Party, and Rev. Kao Chun-ming took up places before the Legislative Yuan and announced that they were holding a hunger strike for plebiscite legislation, stating that they would strike until they dropped. Some at the scene showed support for the strikers by fasting or meditating. Others such as Lee Hung-hsi, a professor of law at National Taiwan University, gave speeches, while the Taiwan Association of University Professors together with social activist groups staged a 1,000-person march in support of the strikers.

During the strike, participants were very concerned about how long they would have to fast before their strike brought about the desired results. Some thought that fasting should be taken in turns in order to keep up pressure on the Kuomintang (KMT). Others thought that such a method would not reflect their determination. Some of the fasters and their supporters were unwilling to walk away and would have preferred to have been dragged off by the police, while others were concerned about how to bring events to a close if the fasters persisted.

After 11 days, when low blood sugar, dehydration and heart palpitations were forcing one striker after another to give up their fast, the Legislative Yuan hurriedly amended its agenda to include a review of a draft bill on plebiscites. The TPAC declared that the strike had carried their voice to the ears of the Taiwanese public, bringing this stage of their mission to a close. They were therefore ending the strike for humanitarian reasons and in order to conserve their strength for the long fight that still remains ahead.

Although the plebiscite draft put together by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative heavyweight Trong Chai has, with the support of the KMT legislative caucus, already been put on the legislative agenda, DPP legislative caucus whip Michael M. Tsai says that the KMT was simply giving the strikers a face-saving way out of the strike, and that the bill will ultimately be killed. But he believes that it would have been better not to include the bill in the legislative agenda, thus keeping the issue in the public view for a longer period of time. Wang Jin-pyng, speaker of the Legislative Yuan, also feels that there is little likelihood of a plebiscite law passing in this legislative session.

Whether or not the plebiscite law will clear the legislature in the near future remains to be seen, but even within the DPP, support for a plebiscite law is not unanimous. The DPP has declared that seeing the hunger strikers sacrifice their bodies for the good of the people of Taiwan was a moving experience, and reiterated its support of the plebiscite principle and determination to see a plebiscite law incorporated into the constitution. However, former Taipei mayor and DPP heavyweight Chen Shui-bian believes that if a plebiscite is really desired, legislation is not necessary, and that one could be called by an executive order.

Chen's view elicited an immediate and disgruntled response from some who wondered if Chen's position had changed. But Hsu Hsin-liang, the former chairman of the DPP, also advocated caution, stating that although the right to hold a plebiscite is fundamental, given Taiwan's very special international situation, plebiscites here may involve national security issues.

In fact, many legislators from both the KMT and the New Party believe that passing a plebiscite law at this point in time would increase the tension across the Taiwan Strait. Feng Ting-kuo, convener of the New Party's legislative caucus, even comes right out and says that the DPP's push for a plebiscite law is really a push for Taiwan independence.

Huang Hwei-chen, director general of the KMT Central Committee's Department of Cultural Affairs, says that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation. Therefore, holding a plebiscite to change the name of the nation or its structure is both inappropriate and unnecessary. Moreover, the ROC has already been fully democratized. The president is elected directly by the public, the National Assembly is popularly elected, and officials and representatives at all levels of the government are chosen by the people. Hong Yuh-chin, executive director of the KMT's Central Policy Committee, also says that the right to hold plebiscites or referenda already exists in the constitution. The draft law on plebiscites and referenda put forward by the Ministry of the Interior clearly states that excepting issues of national sovereignty and self-determination, issues of national policy and law can be decided by referenda, thus compensating for some of the shortcomings of representative democracy.

Taiwan's three main political parties all have their own views on how the issue of a plebiscite should be resolved. And while the social critic Yang Chao believes that the issue deserves serious discussion, he disagrees with the approach of the hunger strikers.

Yang says that in today's society a hunger strike is not an effective way of realizing the goal of a plebiscite law. Besides, the incorporation of a plebiscite law into the constitution is not thought to be a necessary condition of basic justice. But once the hunger strikers began their fast, the demand was made sacrosanct and tied to the questions of national independence and resisting the Chinese communists. By blowing the plebiscite issue all out of proportion and making it seem a step on the road to an independent Taiwan, they made the public afraid of it, and the plebiscite's value as a means of guaranteeing the public's right to participate in government was overlooked.

The hunger strike is now over, and for the organizers of the strike, the incorporation of a plebiscite law into the constitution still seems a distant goal. Putting the issue on the legislative agenda looks like a step towards this goal, but given the actual political situation, no real advance has been made. For Taiwanese, plebiscites pose not only legal questions, but also political ones: How should the nation's future be decided? In what form can a plebiscite acquire a legal foundation? These are serious questions that require time for careful consideration.

p.52

In the struggle to get a plebiscite law into the constitution, the 70-year-old Rev. Kao Chun-ming, a major figure in the Formosa Incident, and a number of supporters of Taiwan independence staged a hunger strike to draw attention to the issue. (photo by Hsueh Chi-kuang)