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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS