To avoid restrictions in the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which still hasn't been promulgated by the president, the Penghu County government hurried to hold a consultative referendum on "playing games" on Dec. 27. This is clear evidence that politicians have no regard for the law. Their promotion of gambling has already reached pathologically worrying levels. By comparison, Penghu residents seem to have been fairly cold towards this gambling referendum, with a turnout of only 21 percent. At the polling stations, some voters even asked why the names of the presidential candidates weren't on the ballot.
It is ironic that while voters are not in a great rush to introduce gambling, politicians are. Penghu residents are totally unconcerned, and most of those who are concerned have interests in the gambling industry. Penghu politicians have used the public's hard-earned money to stage a referendum play which politicians are both directing and acting in. They also try to use it to threaten the central government and gather even more of the people's hard-earned money in order to fatten themselves. The helpless public can do nothing but stand by and watch and protest through their silence.
Gambling in Penghu not yet begun, but in April, the builder Tang Shao-hung (湯紹宏), who had invested large sums of money in local land on which to build casinos, was kidnapped and taken to the mountain area in Shenkeng, where he was killed when he was unable to pay huge commissions on those investments. This murder is just the tip of the iceberg and it shows that there are still many unspeakable secrets certain to interest prosecutors.
Disregarding honesty and honor, some politicians publicly cooperate with people with vested interests in gambling and have for several years used the Legislative Yuan, local councils and county governments to put pressure on the central government. At their wits' end, they have lately resorted to illegal and unreasonable public opinion polls and referendums to create the illusion that mainstream public opinion approves of the legalization of gambling. They even mince words and insist on using the phrase "playing games" as a euphemism for "gambling" in an attempt at duping voters and easing feelings of shame attached to public gambling, showing us to what levels their hypocrisy has soared. The results of the Penghu referendum have already crushed any "mainstream opinion" lies, but the statements by politicians following the publication of the referendum results show that they will continue their abusive three-pronged approach, and that they will not rest until they have achieved their goal.
The question of whether Penghu County should be opened up for gambling is a major public policy issue that will have a major impact not only on Penghu residents, but on all Taiwanese. There are two reasons for this.
First, with the opening up of offshore gambling, most of the people who will make large bets or become addicted, have their reputations destroyed and their homes broken up, will be residents of Taiwan proper. Even if only a special zone were opened up for gambling, therefore, the harm to public order and the political, economic, educational and cultural impact created will have a powerful impact on the nation at large. Where there are casinos, there is illegal money, and that is also a source of blood and tears of innocent people.
Second, if Penghu opens up for gambling based on the referendum on "playing games," then Kinmen and Matsu, as well as cities and counties on Taiwan itself, will follow. This domino effect will cause legal casinos to spread from the offshore islands to Taiwan proper, making Taiwan a fully fledged "Casino Republic."
Based on these two points, the question of whether to establish casinos for tourists is no longer a matter of local autonomy. If politicians necessarily want to promote gambling, they have to refer the issue to a national referendum. What's more, prior to such a referendum, they must fully discuss and promote the pros and cons, and make the public understand that the establishment of tourist casinos will affect the whole country.
I am certainly no puritan asking for superior moral standards, but I do look with an unaverted gaze on the corrupt practices that gambling will bring based on the consideration of political, economic, educational, social order and human nature factors. This is also the reason why the alliance against the legalization of gambling has always advocated that this issue should be resolved in public forums. On Jan. 10 this year, seeing a few greedy legislators apply pressure on the central government to promote gambling, I called on the politicians promoting gambling (as well as one or two academics who specialize in cooking up data to dupe the public and who enjoy great benefits from speaking in favor of gambling) to meet those who oppose gambling in rational public debate to allow the public to make an informed choice.
After being invited to a public debate by a neutral third party, the Taiwan News, however, they developed a bad case of cold feet. This is clear evidence of the guilt [felt by] the politicians who promote gambling. They are afraid to bring this issue out in the open for rational debate. Instead, they attempt to use tricks and minority manipulation to force public acceptance.
With reference to the Penghu gambling referendum, a journalist asked me whether we would initiate a corresponding national referendum. My reply was that it was politicians, not the public, who were in a rush to set up casinos. We must remain calm and not act rashly. According to the law, gambling has not yet been decriminalized, so why would we have to resort to a referendum? Once the politicians in the Cabinet or the Legislative Yuan unilaterally decriminalize gambling (eg, opening up gambling for tourists or gambling on horse or dog races), we are sure to make full use of the soon-to-be-promulgated Referendum Law and refer the issue to a national referendum. To avoid having the gambling industry lose all their investments, I warn those promoting gambling not to think that they will get by easily and win just because they were the first to broach the topic.
Shih Chao-hui is an associate professor at Hsuan-Chuang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry