TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — KMT lawmakers on Monday proposed a referendum on introducing caning as punishment for “serious crimes” such as sexual assault, child abuse, and large-scale fraud.
Seven KMT lawmakers led by Hung Meng-kai (洪孟楷) held a press conference announcing the “caning referendum” proposal, per CNA. They said the issue should be decided through democratic procedures, allowing the public to weigh in on whether to establish a special criminal law system with stronger deterrent effects for specific serious crimes, which would guide future policy planning and legislation.
Hung said sexual assault, child abuse, and large-scale fraud cases have continued to occur, with crimes becoming increasingly severe, complex, and organized. He said it is a major policy question whether the state can continue to rely solely on the existing criminal punishment framework to meet public expectations for safety, procedural justice, and victim protection.
He said the referendum is not intended to directly create criminal penalties or replace the Legislative Yuan’s lawmaking authority or the courts’ role in adjudication and sentencing. Instead, under the Referendum Act, it aims to let the public decide on major policy directions and provide a clear, democratically grounded mandate.
KMT Legislator Huang Chien-hao (黃健豪) said the referendum was proposed to respond to public opinion, per CNA. He said that according to a recent poll, approximately 70% of the public supports introducing caning as a form of punishment for crimes such as sexual assault, child abuse, and fraud.
KMT Legislator Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) urged DPP legislators to stand with public opinion and not vote against the proposal, per Liberty Times. He said that once the referendum is passed by the Legislative Yuan, the Central Election Commission should implement it in accordance with the law and not block it.
KMT Legislative Caucus Secretary-General Lin Pei-hsiang (林沛祥) said the issue is difficult and controversial but must be confronted, and the public should be allowed to express its views. He called for a rational debate on balancing human rights protections with crime deterrence in a rule-of-law society.
