Any scientist will tell you that almost as much can be learned from failure as success. Perhaps this goes for political science too. On Saturday the people of Penghu were asked to vote in a referendum on whether they supported the Penghu County Government's drive to have laws relating to offshore island development policy changed.
The gambling issue has been around for a decade and throughout that time has been portrayed as a gladiatorial issue in which the bitterly divided residents of that remote archipelago were prepared to fight to the death for or against what half of them believed was a a failing local economy's only lifeline, while the other half deplored the "girls, gangs and guns" baggage they believed would inevitably follow from turning Penghu into a Macao-style gambling enclave.
Inevitably the county government turned to a referendum to adjudicate the issue. Saturday's was not the first referendum, either; one running in conjunction with local elections in June last year had claimed to show 80 percent support for legalizing casinos. There was, at that time, no law about how referendums should be conducted or under what circumstances they could be considered valid, so the conduct of the poll was left pretty much up to the county government. The balloting methods were afterwards called into question by a number of legislators. The legislators also pointed to a poll conducted six months before, which showed 45 percent for gambling and 38 percent against, once again casting doubt on the referendum result.
On Saturday they tried again. And the result was that nobody seemed to care. Only 21 percent of those eligible bothered to vote. True, 57 percent of those that did were pro-casino. But all that proves is that 12 percent of those eligible to vote in Penghu care enough about the benefits of casino gambling to turn out and vote for it.
This is not a mandate for anything. So the scandal surrounding this vote is that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Penghu County Commissioner Lai Feng-wei (賴峰偉) had the gall to suggest that his administration now had the green light from voters to lobby the central government for the necessary legal changes to go ahead with the casino project. Actually, the mass no-show of voters should be interpreted as voters rejecting the county government's plans while not wishing to slam the door on the casino option entirely. Lai should be taking his proposals back to the drawing board, not the Legislative Yuan.
But on Saturday we also learned something about the new Referendum Law, namely how necessary it is -- though it has yet to be promulgated. For it is clear that under the new law either the referendum would not have taken place, since a referendum cannot be called by the executive power or, if it did, by virtue of the petition needed to set it in motion, it would have engaged the people of Penghu far more. On top of this, the new law mandates that a referendum has to have at least half the eligible voters cast ballots to be considered valid. Penghu's vote on Saturday failed this by a long chalk.
Whatever the flaws in the Referendum Law as it is, it is still better than letting political grandstanders like Lai waste resources on pet hobby horses in order to claim support which they quite obviously do not have. Penghu's vote on Saturday, by any reasonable standards, failed to solve anything. That has taught us something about Penghu -- that it needs to think again -- and about the Referendum Law -- that we need it badly. Thanks for that.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS