A referendum held in conjunction with local government elections on Saturday proposed lowering the voting age from 20 to 18. However, Central Election Commission (CEC) data showed that votes fell short of the threshold — almost 9.62 million “yes” votes needed to pass — as only 5.65 million voters backed the proposed constitutional amendment, while 5.02 million voters opposed it.
Prior to the results, the Taiwan Alliance for Advancement of Youth Rights and Welfare, the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy and other civil groups had argued that if people face obligations such as paying taxes and compulsory military service at 18 years old, they should also be given the right to vote.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) found the referendum result regrettable. The DPP said its candidates had seized every opportunity to urge supporters to back the proposed amendment in public events over the past few months, while the KMT said it respects the decision of voters and that its support for lowering the voting age remains unchanged.
There are several reasons for the referendum’s failure. The first is the relatively low voter turnout and the high threshold for the proposal’s passage. The average voter turnout rate across cities has been about 66 percent, yet it fell to a new low of 61.22 percent this year. Reaching the threshold of 9.62 million votes is incredibly ambitious. In Taiwan, presidential elections tend to have the highest turnout rate. Even President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who won a landslide victory with a record-breaking 8.17 million votes in 2018, would have fallen short of the goal by 1.49 million votes. This showcases the challenge of amending the Constitution.
Second, political parties did not exert enough effort in promoting the referendum. As the Executive Yuan and the CEC announced the referendum in September, political parties across the spectrum were not given much time to talk to the public about it. In contrast with their efforts to promote last year’s four referendum questions, there was no comprehensive approach to introduce the issue this year. With the parties concentrating on the mayoral campaigns, addressing scandals and even mudslinging, the referendum was marginalized. The straightforward nature of the question also failed to generate debate in society, which led to public indifference.
Third, ideology influenced the outcome. The result shows that Taiwan is essentially a conservative society. Having not yet broken free of the shackles of the former KMT government’s autocratic rule, the obsolete ideas of deference and obedience to authority still loom in some people’s minds. With one side believing that 18-year-olds are still too young to vote, not to mention run for office, and the other side having faith in the judgement of young people, there was a clash of ideology. Furthermore, as some voters believe that young people tend to favor the DPP, their disapproval of the ruling party might have made them cast “no” votes.
Taiwan is one of the very few democratic countries to have maintained a voting age of 20, while neighboring countries, such as South Korea and Japan, have in recent years lowered the voting age to 18. Taiwan must jump on the bandwagon. It needs to let go of its “age bias” and invite young people to engage in politics. Young people’s voices are fundamental to the development and consolidation of Taiwan’s democracy.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily