By Shen Nai-hsun (沈迺訓). AI illustration image.
The Kuomintang (KMT, 國民黨) originally argued that introducing judicial caning was a decision for the people. After the Central Election Commission (CEC, 中央選舉委員會) rejected its referendum proposal, the party now wants lawmakers to make that decision themselves.
That change of course risks undermining the principle on which the KMT built its campaign.
On Sept. 30, the party announced plans to amend the Criminal Code to introduce caning as an additional punishment for certain serious crimes, including sexual violence, drug-impaired driving, child abuse causing death or serious injury, and aggravated fraud.
The proposal raises difficult questions about punishment, human rights and the limits of state power. The KMT should think carefully before turning a dispute over direct democracy into a parliamentary campaign to authorize corporal punishment.
Whether caning should become law is deeply contentious. International human-rights standards generally oppose such punishment. At the same time, public confidence in justice systems, sentencing practices, and national circumstances differ. Those differences help explain why some people support harsher penalties.
Precisely because the issue is so divisive, I believe the KMT was right to seek a public vote. A referendum would give citizens a direct opportunity to express their views on a proposed expansion of the state’s power to punish.
The CEC’s rejection therefore deserves scrutiny. The commission concluded that the proposal did not meet the statutory requirements for a referendum on a major policy. I disagree with its intervention and believe it raises serious questions about the boundary between electoral administration and legislative authority.
There is also a legal interpretation worth examining. In a July 2013 opinion, the Ministry of Justice distinguished citizen-initiated referendums from those approved by the legislature. It said a legislature-approved referendum became established when delivered to the CEC, without appearing to require a separate establishment announcement.
In my view, that interpretation strengthens the case for challenging the commission’s decision. Its application to the present dispute should be examined openly, rather than allowing the disagreement to become another exchange of partisan accusations.
But disagreement with the CEC does not make the KMT’s new strategy wise.
If the party’s original position was that voters should decide whether Taiwan introduces caning, bypassing that vote through direct legislation weakens its argument. It gives political opponents an obvious response: the KMT demanded a referendum until that route was blocked, then decided to use its legislative strength instead.
The change also brings the substance of the punishment into sharper focus. The party would be asking lawmakers to authorize the deliberate infliction of physical pain, despite the legal and human-rights objections it already knows the proposal faces.
Nor would legislative passage necessarily end the dispute. Further conflict with the executive could follow, leaving the opposition in another institutional confrontation with no clear resolution.
The KMT should ask what it hopes to achieve. Continuing this fight may generate headlines, but it could also alienate voters and distract from issues affecting their daily lives.
With local elections approaching, the opposition would be better served by developing credible proposals on livelihoods and public services. It should challenge what it regards as improper restrictions on referendums through the appropriate channels, while recognizing that direct legislation on caning may cost it the very argument it began by defending.
WIKIPEDIA info on Caning in Singapore
Shen Nai-hsun is a freelance writer. This edited English adaptation is based on his Oct. 1 China Times commentary, “鞭刑國會立法 恐失大義.”
