Mon, Mar 29, 2004 page8

• Emotion must not override reason

  • By Xiang Yang 向陽
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) re-election closed the curtain on the March 20 election. The razor-thin margin by which the pan-blue ticket lost, however, has stirred up considerable discontent within the pan-blue camp.

  On the night of the election, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) did not concede defeat as expected but instead refused to accept the results. He called for the election to be annulled and demanded that the Central Election Commission recount the vote at once.

  Lien's astonishing remarks raised the curtain once again. Since the night of March 20, pan-blue supporters have massed in front of the Presidential Office, demanding a recount and the truth behind the shooting incident.

  Remembering that supporters of People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) besieged the KMT (國民黨) headquarters four years ago, the drama of the last few days seems like deja vu. While four years ago the pan-blue supporters directed their unhappiness at former KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who adopted "dump Lien to save Chen" tactics, this time the protesters have questioned both the justice of the election and the president's character.

  Lien's demand for a recount is not unreasonable, given that according to the official tally he lost by so few votes. And because Lien's call for a recount stands on the solid ground of law, the Taiwan High Court has ordered that all ballot boxes be sealed nationwide. But now that Lien's lawsuits are being processed, there is little else to do but wait for the machinery of the legal process to settle the election dispute.

  If, on the other hand, we let emotion override reason, the problem will remain unresolved.

  A tiny margin is, after all, an undeniable difference. The rules of democratic politics are not set by a single party alone. For example, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (總統副總統選舉罷免法) was ratified by a Legislative Yuan comprised of many parties. And since the legislature has recently set more stringent laws regarding what constitutes an invalid ballot, the number of invalid votes has naturally increased. It is unwise to accuse one's opponents of vote-rigging on the basis of there being a substantial number of invalid ballots.

  Each party within a democracy is obliged to accept election results. One cannot refuse to accept the outcome just because one believes that the the election was unfair.

  In light of this, the fact that Lien and Soong have led supporters to march to the Presidential Office, called for their supporters to congregate and protest in violation of the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) -- which was enacted by the pan-blue-dominated legislature -- and have shown no regard for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) repeated appeals for the crowds to disperse, makes one feel that they are letting their emotions get the better of them.

  I am afraid that the majority of voters in Taiwan will not find this acceptable.

  The pan-blue camp is willing to resort to legal means, demanding a recount and the sealing of ballot boxes and vowing to file a lawsuit to have the election annulled -- so why are they incapable of obeying the Assembly and Parade Law? If Lien and Soong abide by the law only insofar as it suits them, how can we expect them to rule this nation by law? How can they justify their demands?

  The gravity of the problem goes way beyond this. The political gatherings over the past few days have come dangerously close to rupturing ethnic harmony.

  Chen's re-election bid was endorsed by at least half of the electorate. A handful of politicians can refuse to recognize his victory but they must not brand him a liar or demand that he step down. Is doing so conducive to social stability?

  The election result reveals overwhelming support for the pan-blue camp in northern Taiwan and support for the pan-green camp in the south. This phenomenon only reflects the differences in politics and culture between the north and south. But a handful of politicians have openly suggested that the north and south separate and build their own nations. Is this conducive to ethnic harmony?

  Even before all the facts about the assassination attempt on Chen could be determined, they boldly asserted that it was a staged drama in a dirty election. Is this rational?

  Despite demanding that their supporters remain rational and peaceful, they are stirring up people's emotions, wanting them to carry out a long-term fight amid wind and rain. Is this how responsible political leaders should behave?

  Lien's not delivering a concession speech was understandable, even though it demonstrated a lack of democratic spirit.

  Destroying partisan relations is also understandable because politics necessarily involves power struggle.

  But if the pan-blue side incites people to take to the streets just because of the miniscule margin by which Chen won and lets a handful of politicians play up irresponsible issues to undermine ethnic relations, then this is unforgivable.

  Some religious leaders have called for reason and mutual respect -- in direct contrast to some politicians' wild appeals and the gestures of hatred and the bloodshot eyes that we have seen on TV.

  Those who love this nation and society watch with bleeding hearts.

  Xiang Yang is an associate professor of indigenous languages at National Dong Hwa University.

  Translated by Wang Hsiao-wen and Jackie Lin
• Most Popular

  • 1

    LA Dodgers show off World Series rings

  • 2

    Hong Kong Sevens settles into new Kai Tak Stadium

  • 3

    Homeless Sudan club defy odds in CAF Champions

  • 4

    Dodgers edge Tigers and Yankees beat Brewers in opening games in the US

  • 5

    Michkov key as Flyers beat Predators