Days after the Nov. 24 elections, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shih-bao (賴士葆) demanded that the government “abide by the will of the people” and only allow same-sex couples to have civil unions.
Lai also lashed out at Judicial Yuan President Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) for “trumping democracy” by saying that any laws passed following the referendums “cannot contradict” the Council of Grand Justices’ Interpretation No. 748, which guarantees same-sex couples the right to marriage.
He also proposed introducing another referendum in 2020 to annul the interpretation.
The absurdity here is manyfold.
First, the referendum questions on Nov. 24 need to be clarified. Two of the three questions proposed by groups against marriage equality were related to marriage: “Do you agree that the Civil Code should define marriage as the union between a man and a woman?” and “Do you agree that the right to persons of the same sex to create a permanent union should be guaranteed by an institution other than marriage as defined by the Civil Code?”
The wordings were formed after a hearing determined that the groups’ original questions — which used “marriage” in the questions without the restrictive modifier “as defined by the Civil Code” — had contradicted the constitutional interpretation.
In other words, by acknowledging the mistake and changing the wording, the groups fully understood that the authorities would still be required by the interpretation to amend or enact laws that protect same-sex couples’ right to marriage — or so the Central Election Commission believed, as it said in a news release in April after it approved the questions.
Legal experts cautioned the commission even before the referendums took place, saying that the groups were veiling their true intentions by adding the restrictive modifiers to their proposals just so the questions could pass the commission’s review. Meanwhile, the groups were telling the public that they were campaigning to block same-sex couples from marrying at all, whether via the Civil Code or a separate law.
So the warning was right: The groups are denying that the referendum results leave any room for the possibility of marriage equality, even in the form of a separate law.
They were endorsed by some KMT lawmakers and likely by many more who voiced their support for the groups before the elections, including Kaohsiung mayor-elect Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who reportedly called an anti-gay pastor after the elections and promised to bring his choice for Kaohsiung Education Bureau head to the pastor, presumably for approval.
Lai also said that what Hsu and another “few grand justices” decided was not as democratic as the referendum, and that as long as Hsu and other justices appointed by the Democratic Progressive Party do not recognize the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, their decisions are not to be respected.
Plenty of debates could be launched on the question of whether constitutional courts are “democratic” enough, but what is certain is that the KMT does not respect the Constitution as much as it thinks it does. KMT politicians only cite it when discussing cross-strait relations, shouting about the section on territory.
Lai is no exception. He criticized Hsu’s qualification because Hsu had argued that the sovereignty of the ROC does not extend to the “mainland.”
The Constitution, more than the KMT and some independence advocates like to admit, is not just about “territory.” It guarantees human rights and calls for equality before the law “irrespective of sex, religion, race, class or party affiliation.”
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.