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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS