Jump to main content block
Anti-casino Alliance strongly opposes referendum proposal, questioning its legality

Anti-casino Alliance strongly opposes referendum proposal, questioning its legality
06/20/2017
Reporter: Staff Reporter/Summary Report
The Kinmen Anti-casino Alliance yesterday issued a press release making several statements against the passage of the bill of a local referendum with the question: “In order to revitalize Kinmen’s economy and create a better future for Kinmen, do you agree to establish an international resort with 5% of gaming?” proposed by inhabitant Tsai Chun-Sheng and examined and adopted at the 175th meeting held by the Kinmen County Election Commission yesterday.
The Kinmen Anti-casino Alliance deeply regretted the passage of the referendum proposal by the Kinmen County Election Commission and strongly challenged the legality of the bill. They called for revocation of the announcement of the referendum and were to launch a petition against the implementation of the referendum.
The alliance said that the referendum bill introduced by the supporters was highly misleading in the question and that the definition was confusing and unclear, which would result in the public running into difficulty with the vote. The alliance previously called on the commission to return the proposal to the supporting party and request it to revise the question before submission for review. Moreover, the referendum on “legalizing the gaming industry” (not permitted by law) that passed for “legalizing casinos” is neither legitimate nor legal. According to the referendum data collected by the alliance, the past three local gaming referenda—the first referendum was held in Penghu in 2009 with the question: “Do you want Penghu to establish an international resort with a tourist casino?”; then a referendum was held in Matsu in 2012 with the question: “Do you want Matsu to build an international resort with a tourist casino?”; and another referendum was held in Penghu in 2016 with the question: “Do you agree that Penghu should set up an international resort with a tourist casino?”—did not contain any misleading words and vague expressions, which highlights the absurdity of the misleading question of the Kinmen referendum.
In addition, it claimed that although the referendum budget came from taxpayers' money, it stood to reason that the funds should be raised by and the expenses apportioned among the supporters submitting the proposal rather than spending people's hard-earned money. As the referendum constitutes an election event, whether the referendum bill is adopted or not belongs to a public welfare event. In order to safeguard public welfare, the people may file administrative litigation against the referendum announcement with the administrative court. Therefore, the alliance would launch a campaign for revocation of the announcement of the referendum and organize a petition against the implementation of the referendum.

  • views:882
  • Date:2017-12-01