The Central Election Commission last week issued a strong rebuttal of an online rumor that it was using procedural jiggery-pokery to suppress the electorate’s voting rights, which, it was claimed, would deter a large section of the public from voting.
Its decision to issue separate ballots and ballot boxes for the proposed referendums to be held alongside the nine-in-one local elections stemmed from a difference in the minimum voting ages for elections (20 years) and referendums (18 years).
How did such a muddle develop? If the voting age for both was 18, there would be no basis for the rumors and the commission would not have needed to design such complicated and confusing measures.
The legal voting age for referendums was last year lowered from 20 to 18 through an amendment to the Referendum Act (公民投票法).
However, the change was not extended to elections, so 18 and 19-year-olds have been given the power to vote on important matters in referendums, but are not deemed old enough to select candidates in elections.
As the Legislative Yuan saw fit to pass the amendment, the hope is that legislators would fully implement intergenerational justice by reducing the voting age for elections to 18.
This could be achieved simply by amending Article 130 of the Constitution, and would bring Taiwan in line with other democratic nations.
One of the proposed referendums addresses whether “Taiwan” should be used for the national sports team at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
A series of “anti” referendums has been proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), through which it seeks to overturn government policy on air pollution and nuclear power, food from regions affected by the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster, the construction of a new Shenao Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Rueifang District (瑞芳) and same-sex marriage.
These proposals touch upon matters crucial to the nation’s future. How can legislators grant 18-year-olds the right to vote on these far-reaching issues, but prevent them from taking part in electing government officials?
Legislators have failed to complete voting age reform, delivering only a messy compromise that insults young voters.
Democratic Progressive Party politicians — custodians of the temporary majority in government granted to them by the electorate — must live up to the “democratic” and “progressive” in their party’s name by allowing people to vote in referendums and elections from the age of 18.
None of the referendums proposes lowering the voting age in elections to 18, but the hope remains that intergenerational justice would become a reality sooner rather than later.
Hung Yu-chiang is director of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital’s Chinese medicine department.
Translated by Edward Jones
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US