Religion and state
On March 7, the Council of Agriculture’s (COA) Irrigation Agency appointed Jenn Lann Temple (大甲鎮瀾宮) in Taichung’s Dajia District (大甲) to hold a ceremony to pray to the sea goddess Matsu (媽祖) for rain.
The government’s intent is good, as it wants to relieve a nationwide water shortage, but to appoint a single temple to hold a religious ceremony to pray for rain clearly contravenes the basic principle of the separation of religion and state, which must be adhered to in a democratic, modern society.
The Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 490 states: “People shall have the freedom to believe in any religion and to participate in any religious activities. The state shall neither forbid nor endorse any particular religion and shall never extend any privileges or disadvantages to people on the basis of their particular religious beliefs.”
Furthermore, Constitutional Interpretation No. 573 states: “The constitutional guarantee of the people’s freedom of religious belief is intended to preserve self-development and self-realization of the human spirits of the people, as well as to make social and cultural diversity a tangible reality.
“Therefore, the state shall discreetly abide by the principles of neutrality and tolerance by not encouraging or forbidding any specific religion, nor giving favorable or unfavorable treatment to any people having specific beliefs.”
According to data from the Ministry of the Interior, as of January 2017, there were 22 major religious beliefs in Taiwan, and Jenn Lann Temple’s religious belief in Matsu is one of them.
Given the above, it is impossible not to question the agency’s decision, because appointing Jenn Lann Temple to pray for rain might be seen as the government’s endorsement of the “power and status” of the deity at the temple.
Surely that appointment was an instance of favorable treatment of a temple with a specific belief, and surely it was also a violation of the key points in the constitutional interpretations.
There are many other religious beliefs in Taiwan in addition to Matsu.
However, the amount of rainfall is crucial to the livelihood of all Taiwanese. As the government represents all Taiwanese, this raises the question of why it would turn to one specific religion and ignore the potential magical powers of other religions.
The agency’s action has been criticized for “seeking guidance from heaven, not the public.” More seriously, it might be a contravention of the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of religion and state.
Huang Wei-ping
Kaohsiung
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
The following case, which I experienced as an interpreter, illustrates that many issues in Taiwan’s legal system originate from law enforcement personnel. The problem stems not so much from their education and training, but their personal attitude — characterized by excessive self-confidence paired with a lack of accountability. One day at 10:30am, I was called to a police station in New Taipei City for an emergency. I arrived an hour later. A man was tied to a chair, having been arrested at the airport due to an outstanding arrest warrant. It quickly became apparent that the case was related to
RSS