There are many reasons for voting to have a casino in one’s county, city or even neighborhood, just as there are many reasons for voting not to have a casino. Although this article will not examine those arguments, when Matsu recently held a referendum on whether to build a casino resort, those voting had to consider such issues.
However, the impact of the referendum was not limited to the issue of casinos and the result promises to shake the nation, because the vote also involved democracy, the rule of law and both the real and metaphoric aspects of gambling and bluffing.
Matsu is a small island off the coast of China, but it is not part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Instead, it is part of the Republic of China (ROC) or Taiwan. Matsu, unlike China, has never been ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and, unlike Taiwan, was never part of the Japanese Empire. It has its own strange and unique history.
However, one problem this small island and its surrounding archipelago has is that it currently has only 7,762 registered voters, compared with about 17 million plus eligible voters in Taiwan proper.
In other words, when it comes to political clout and securing improvements in Matsu’s infrastructure, those fewer than 8,000 voters are a drop in the ocean, hardly worth the time of day when public funding allocations are discussed.
Enter now the quirks, advantages and disadvantages of present day reality and democracy. In the nation of Taiwan, gambling is illegal, even though many people like to and do gamble.
For this reason, no approval has ever been given for the building of a casino because such a proposal has to be approved by the legislature to become law and most legislators do not want to face the concerted opposition of anti-casino activist groups. Whenever the possibility of casinos has been raised, such groups have quickly squashed all debate.
However, in 2000, in an effort to help development in the outlying islands, the legislature passed the Offshore Islands Development Act (離島建設條例, OIDA), a seemingly innocent law designed to promote tourism. This act sat quietly on the books until an amendment in 2009 subsequently included the building of casinos as part of offshore development.
At that time, the building of casinos was declared legal if approved by a local referendum.
Taking advantage of this latest development, pro-gambling lobby groups in 2009 pushed for a referendum on Penghu, but it was defeated.
It should be noted that these island development referendums do not have to pass the high bar set for national referendums. For example, in national referendums, more than 50 percent of eligible voters must turn out and vote for the result to be valid. In contrast, the outcome of a local OIDA referendum is determined by a majority of those who vote.
On July 7, when Matsu voters went to the polls, 1,795 of them voted in favor of building a casino and 1,341 voted against.
Put another way, 454 voters on this small, out-of-the-way island determined the fate of casinos in the nation and the rest of the electorate had no say in the matter. It was all perfectly democratic and legal.
Now follow the consequences. Since the voters have approved the building of resort casinos, Weidner Resorts Taiwan quickly said it would not only build a resort casino, but also contribute handsomely to the development of infrastructure in Matsu.
Likewise, the national government, no doubt silently encouraged by pro-gambling groups who for obvious reasons do not want to be named, must also commit resources to the project.
It is also required to pass bills to manage casino development and the many issues and challenges such projects bring.
To its credit, the government appears to have anticipated the result and already drafted legislation to be examined.
However, the question is why Matsu residents voted the way they did.
Certainly, one factor is that they had nothing to lose, largely because Matsu has been unable to attract much investment or infrastructure development because of its lack of political influence.
If the OIDA was meant as window dressing, a bluff to convince other voters that the legislature cared about all the citizens of Taiwan, the voters of Matsu called their bluff. With the Matsu referendum passed, the ball is now firmly in the government’s court.
Unfortunately for Matsu, even as the government prepares to deal with this latest development, they are not quite home free yet, because Kinmen, an island with better infrastructure, could hold a referendum of its own.
Whether that happens remains to be seen, but in Matsu, the people have spoken and they want development.
For the general public, this is a lesson in democracy: There will always be times and situations where individual votes clearly do count; there will be times when a minority can exert an influence far beyond its numbers.
The pro-gambling groups have achieved their desired outcome and can rejoice; for others, like the anti-gambling groups, it was all perfectly legal and they have no recourse. Their only hope is to hold another referendum in three years.
For Taiwan, this represents a significant moment that everyone can point to and say the course of a nation was determined by 454 votes on an out-of-the-way island, and that is part and parcel of democracy.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past