This month’s elections and the accompanying referendums are almost here. The large amount of publicity, debate and level of engagement surrounding the referendums has not only given the public a rare opportunity to reflect on and discuss important issues, but has further consolidated Taiwan’s democracy.
Referendums Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were proposed by two groups opposed to same-sex marriage and same-sex education. The groups established national referendum offices: the Office Opposed to the Anti-gay Referendums (反對愛家公投辦公室) and the Ren Ching Community Service Association (中華仁親社區關懷協會), which, in practice hold the same positions as the groups proposing the referendums.
Both offices obtained the right to participate in debates on the three referendums, creating the preposterous situation in which the debates are conducted in an echo chamber by two groups that are against same-sex rights.
This situation reveals the undemocratic nature of these groups and has severely damaged the referendum movement, which really should be a milestone for Taiwan’s democracy.
The basis for conducting referendum debates is set out in Article 17 of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), under additional powers granted to the Central Election Commission to carry out “two measures”: Measures for the Implementation of a National Referendum Presentation or Debate (全國性公民投票意見發表會或辯論會實施辦法) and Measures for the Establishment of a National Referendum Office and Staff (全國性公民投票辦事處及辦事人員設置辦法).
Article 17 of the act states that the commission “shall provide representatives of positive and negative opinions with the time to present their opinions or debate through national broadcast TV channels at public expense.”
Under Articles 2 and 7 of the rules on setting up referendum offices, the proposer of a referendum and representatives of groups supporting or opposing the referendum can establish an office simply by providing a few documents such as a registration form and an identification card.
The commission has the authority to review office permits, although the rules provide no further authority apart from verifying that the required documentation was correctly submitted.
Article 2 of the rules on setting up referendum debates states that the number of debates that registered campaign groups can participate in should be determined by drawing lots.
A combination of these two sets of rules created the absurd situation in which the two groups opposed to same-sex marriage were able to make a mockery of the process.
Supporters of the referendums against same-sex marriage were able to set up more than one office, monopolize the debates and deprive those opposed to the referendums of the opportunity to fully express their opinions.
The Referendum Act was meant to bring democracy closer to the public, employing direct democracy to make up for the limitations of representative democracy.
All referendum groups should be able to adequately mobilize supporters and fully express their opinions within the open market of free speech, thereby strengthening the democratic process.
The act stipulates that presentations and debates should held to avoid voters from being herded like sheep to vote for a particular cause and to prevent referendums from descending into populism, with emotion trumping rational thought and the majority suppressing minority groups.
Presentations and debates also ensure that the electorate is provided with sufficient information and diverse views to enable informed and rational decisionmaking.
Referendums should enable Taiwanese society to further deepen its democracy.
The hijacking of the referendum process by those opposed to same-sex marriage has exposed their intolerance and lack of courage to engage in rational debate. They have also deprived the public of the opportunity to hear alternative viewpoints, turned the referendum process into a farce and inflicted deep and lasting damage to the nation’s democratic spirit.
Amid widespread criticism of their actions, the national offices set up by the two groups said they would relinquish their right to participate in the debates, thereby bringing an end to this strange process.
However, only amending the act and the two measures will prevent a similar situation.
Amendments should specify that the commission will review public statements and opinions issued by referendum groups prior to letting them participate in debates to ensure that the process is not sabotaged.
The commission must ensure that it always places itself above the political fray and remains scrupulously neutral to safeguard and strengthen Taiwan’s democracy.
Lin Chun-yuan is an associate professor of law at Chung Yuan Christian University.
Translated by Edward Jones
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
RSS