The Democratic Progressive Party was not the only loser on Saturday, as voters also dealt a heavy blow to the LGBTQ community, as well as human rights and equality in Taiwan.
All three referendums proposed by groups opposed to marriage equality were passed, while two others put forward by LGBTQ rights advocates did not even breach the minimum threshold.
The government should closely review how the referendum process works, as the Central Election Commission (CEC) was clearly not prepared to handle 10 referendums simultaneously, after handling only six in 2004 and 2008.
Not only were the referendums a logistics nightmare, which caused long lines and an extra burden for election staff, the wording of the questions was problematic and potentially misleading: Five questions were about essentially the same issue, with three coming from a single organization that sought to overturn rulings that had already been deemed constitutional.
Holding the referendums cost taxpayers an additional NT$1.3 billion (US$42.1 million), which is not a small amount, not even for a state: The Central News Agency has reported that the government had to dip into the Executive Yuan’s secondary reserve fund to finance the referendums, as it had no extra budget for them.
Referendums are a crucial part of democratic governance, but if Saturday’s debacle was any indicator, every election from now on will become a nightmare for the CEC and the public.
A mechanism must be put in place to regulate referendums.
The CEC was already under fire for rejecting many proposals earlier this year.
However, it allowed three proposals that, regardless of their wording, were clearly discriminatory against LGBTQ people who are just as much a part of society as everyone else.
Human rights cannot be put to a vote. If so, where does the government draw the line? What happens if a group proposes a referendum discriminating against migrant workers, albeit in a way that is technically legal? Will that be approved as well?
People should be voting on issues that affect the entire nation, not on those that target a certain group.
A perfect example is referendum #16, as it relates to the Electricity Act (電業法) and the fate of nuclear energy in Taiwan, which affects everyone and is crucial to the nation’s future.
People need to ask whether the referendum system and the burden it creates are really helping the nation and its people find a way to move forward together. Or is it further dividing an already fractured society and complicating policymaking?
For example, the government had already scrapped the Shenao power plant project in October, but people still voted on it on Saturday — a complete waste of money and effort.
Referendums should be a mainstay of Taiwan’s shining democracy, but they should not be allowed to continue in this form.
This was the first time that proposed referendums were passed, raising many questions as to what will happen next.
Only referendum #16 would have a direct effect on the law; the rest are opinion questions and are open to interpretation.
The elections showed that the public is extremely unhappy with the government, which should tread carefully from now on, as it cannot afford to make any more empty promises.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS