The people of Taiwan and their officials confront a number of problems in recounting votes from the March 20 presidential election. It is difficult for friends of Taiwan abroad to follow the details of each of these problems -- who pays? A judicial or legislative decision? The length of time for recounting? Or even whether to recount? The customary abrupt post-election departure of many visiting journalists and academics deprives overseas students of democracy of sources to monitor the changing circumstances stemming from the closeness of the vote. Even otherwise reliable Web sites have lowered their priorities for the impending recount.
Despite these handicaps, specialists in Taiwan's elections can glean hints of progress and retrogression in reaching a broadly acceptable and established legal outcome. Among these signs are those relating to the recount itself, not to the decision to recount, not to the payment of costs for the recount, not even to the merits of any legal dispute before the Taiwan High Court, but to the physical setting and physical acts of retabulating the ballots cast on March 20.
Since this would be the first major recount in the nation's history and previous considerations of recounts have been inconclusive, surely controversies are likely to spawn. The fundamental one may turn on the meaning of "recount." Some surely will want to adhere to a narrow conception in which the reappraisal is confined to a simple double-checking of the accuracy of the original count. Others will want to introduce higher or more extensive standards.
For example, the claim that "every vote should be counted" will seem appealing. However, unless the recount is to be turned into a new count of an essentially new and different election, participants should set a common and realistic goal: To recount the vote in as nearly the same ways as originally. The test is whether the recount is of the same election.
To this end, at least three questions deserve scrutiny and resolution. First, who counts? It is not clear to date what personnel will be assigned to this task. News media report that judges and prosecutors may be recruited. Whatever their integrity, they are unlikely to be experienced at counting paper ballots. Who is experienced? The officials who conducted the election -- school teachers, civil servants and others hired and trained during the last several years, most of whom will have had worked in previous elections. Counting ballots may seem, but is not, an altogether routine task. Actually, it involves several tasks: Reading the ballot, showing it to observers, recording it on a wallboard, collecting and securing ballots at the end of the count, all of which are followed by officially reporting results in a standardized way.
In addition to who counts, there arises the second question -- who observes? Typically, the major political parties assign local party members or leaders to monitor the vote during the day and the counting at the end. These people vary greatly in experience, attentiveness and competence. Are the same observers to attend the recount as monitored the original count? Are they to follow the same instructions for accepting or challenging voters and/or ballots, or are they to be a newly installed team of successors, to employ different standards for affirming or disputing how one or more ballots are to be counted, or even accepted for counting?
The reference to instructions leads to the third question, what rules are to guide counters and observers? The same as or different from those that prevailed on election day? It is not out of the question that different counters, or even partisan-minded original counters fired up by the post-election controversy, may introduce new or different conditions for accepting and counting ballots. For example, the Legislative Yuan stipulated that Central Election Commission officials are to count only those ballots on which voters stamped their X in a designated spot. Stamps applied anywhere else, for example, on or near the picture or name of the candidate, are to be regarded as invalid. Will the appropriateness of this or other rules be challenged on the grounds of "hypertechnicality?"
There are likely to be other details of the counting that will be subject to discretion. In any case, it would be ironical and perverse if failure to adhere to a strict replication of the count indirectly or inadvertently granted the otherwise lame motion to invalidate the election and start again.
James Robinson, an American political scientist, has observed virtually every kind of election in Taiwan during the period of democratic reform.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS