After the Enforcement Act for Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 (司法院釋字第748號解釋施行法) was passed, messages about the government pushing for same-sex marriage while disregarding the results of last year’s referendums and calls for voters in next year’s elections to teach the government a lesson for trampling on public opinion were widely spread in online chat groups for older people.
Are these claims really true? Did people actually read the referendum questions before voting, and did they understand the reasoning for the referendums?
Take, for example, referendums 10 and 12, which were related to legalizing same-sex marriage.
Referendum No. 10 read: “Do you agree that the Civil Code should define marriage as the union between a man and a woman?”
This means that same-sex marriage should not be added to Article 972 of the Civil Code, which states: “An agreement to marry shall be made by the male and the female parties in their own concord.”
As the referendum was passed with 7.65 million votes, Article 972 has remained unchanged, in compliance with the outcome.
Referendum No. 12 read: “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?”
This means protecting same-sex marriage in ways other than changing the Civil Code — in other words, protecting it through the legislation of a “special law.”
Since the referendum passed with 6.4 million votes, the Cabinet proposed the rather awkwardly named enforcement act so as not to offend opponents of same-sex marriage, while complying with Constitutional Interpretation No. 748 and Referendum No. 12.
The enforcement act is a special law and is clearly the result of Referendum No. 12.
However, after the government passed the act, many people and legislators have angrily accused it of betraying public opinion — a groundless accusation that has become widespread.
For example, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) said: “On the same-sex marriage issue, the referendum was passed after the constitutional interpretation, so the government should therefore attach greater importance to the referendum, as it represents the latest public opinion.”
He also asked the public which was more important: “the opinion of the 15 grand justices or that of millions of voters in the referendum.”
Lai’s remarks are certain to raise questions in the minds of any student of political science. Considering new constitutional conventions based on the latest public opinion probably only happens in cohabitation governments using the French semi-presidential system. Pitching a constitutional interpretation against a referendum is absurd and utter nonsense.
Looking back at the same-sex marriage disputes, perhaps they were a result of “fast culture,” as people nowadays want everything to be explained “for dummies.” People are no longer used to reading the required information before making their own judgements.
However, a referendum is an exercise in civic self-determination. As many voters brought small notes instructing them how to vote to the booths, can such an important matter really be treated as if it were a children’s game?
How can this collective idiocy be addressed?
Jay Lee is an adjunct teacher of citizenship at National Nanke International Experimental High School.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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