On March 19, I wrote a column discussing the Taiwan Network for Free Elections' concerns about the quality of Taiwan's elections. At the time, our organization worried about being seen as uncharitable. In light of all the post-election controversy, it is worth reviewing our concerns.
First, the only threat we saw to free elections was that vote-buying could not be said to have been eliminated. We did not worry about election fraud at polling stations because the system of voting and counting in Taiwan is transparent and well-organized, and in particular because the system of monitoring by party agents is working properly.
Therefore the post-election accusations of widespread fraud are simply not credible.
We also were concerned that the referendum boycott and the way the referendum was conducted could combine to create a new threat to ballot secrecy.
This issue turned out to be a genuine problem, as was demonstrated most eloquently by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
His desire to conceal his choice was apparently considered more important than that of the many ordinary voters who reported feeling nervous or under pressure when deciding whether or not to approach the referendum table.
We were more concerned about issues of fairness. The issues of party assets and campaign financing, despite passage of a new law just before the election, still demand considerable attention.
Likewise, we have seen no improvement in the professional or ethical quality of the news media, which during the election and its aftermath have continued to act as political advocates rather than as observers.
A final concern we raised turned out to directly relate to the post-election controversy. This was the politicization of the electoral authorities, a problem that was evident throughout the preparations for the referendum. Instead of being a potential problem for the future, as we worried then, this politicization of officials whose objectivity is critical to performance of their duties has become a pressing public concern.
Public trust in these election authorities has been undermined, and this not only enabled the pan-blues to stoke the anger of their followers, but now is compli-cating efforts to bring the affair to a proper conclusion.
The recount raises a host of new fairness issues as well. To be frank, the pan-blues are justified in calling for such a recount, simply because of the narrowness of the margin of victory. It is reasonable to check the ballots again in order to consolidate public confidence in the result.
However, in order for the recount to achieve these worthy aims, it must not only be fair, but also be seen as fair.
The quality of the process is clearly paramount, and its speed is only a second-order consideration. A rushed recount would fail to earn public trust, and a botched process would create serious controversies where sus-picions and innuendos existed before.
Thus the pan-blues' high-decibel demands after the vote for an "immediate" recount were unreasonable. The only step that was necessary to take immediately was the securing of the ballots, which was in fact done very quickly.
After that, the two sides should have begun a rational process of negotiation to plan a recount. Unfortunately, this has not gone as smoothly as hoped.
In addition to dragging the election administration into the mud, the pan-blue legal team's tactics showed contempt for the judicial system's integrity.One example of this mistrust of blind justice is the pan-blues' withdrawing and refiling their lawsuit to ensure it would be heard by judges that suited them.
When the negotiation process finally began, it faced many contentious issues. Although people may be frustrated at this slow progress, both sides must be able to fully air their positions before the recount begins. The fact that the issues are tricky only proves that a recount could not have been carried out "immediately."
Whatever the symbolic benefit of completing a recount before the May 20 inauguration ceremony, it would be wrong to hurry the process to meet that deadline. Such rushing would only spoil the hard work that has been done, and a last-minute announcement of a result would only stir up emotions on both sides.
From what we have seen so far, the High Court judges in charge of the case are making the right moves. First, the decision that each local court should simply screen out mutually acceptable ballots, referring all questionable ones to the High Court, seems a good idea. This will avoid one of the central problems in Florida, where each locality had a different standard for judging ballot validity (remember the hanging chads?). Of course this will take more time, but it's worth it.
Second, the April 28 decision to uphold the standards for ballot validity promulgated by the Central Election Commission before the election is correct. In principle, a "loose standard" that allows as many ballots to be counted as possible, as long as the voter's intent can be clearly identified, protects the right to vote for the maximum number of people.
However, a strict standard can help to reduce vote-buying by narrowing the range of possible identifying marks on ballots.
This is a legitimate public interest in Taiwan, and the Legislative Yuan, led by the pan-blues, decided last year to strike the balance in favor of increased strictness. Any changes to the standard must not be applied retroactively.
The court's ruling on voter lists is also correct. The only plausible reason to check voter lists is to check for the possibility of multiple voting. However, Taiwan's system of stamping ID cards and checking them against lists generated from the household registration database already provides better safeguards against multiple voting than exist in most countries.
The role of voter lists in a recount is to provide a cross-check on the number of ballots used in each polling station: Does it match the number of voters? Next, one must check whether this number, plus the number of unused ballots, equals the total number of ballots supplied to the polling station beforehand.
If all these numbers match, there is no need for further investigation of the voter list for that polling station, and the recount can proceed. Only if there is any discrepancy should a particular list be examined more closely. Either side may, with sufficient evidence, apply for investigation of specific cases, and the court's ruling preserves this right.
At the end of our last article, we warned that it was "no time for complacency." Surely no one is complacent today.
Now we need to be patient and work hard to set good precedents and upgrade election procedures. If we do, this crisis can make Taiwan's democracy stronger than ever.
Bo Tedards is a coordinator of the Taiwan Network for Free Elections.
It is employment pass renewal season in Singapore, and the new regime is dominating the conversation at after-work cocktails on Fridays. From September, overseas employees on a work visa would need to fulfill the city-state’s new points-based system, and earn a minimum salary threshold to stay in their jobs. While this mirrors what happens in other countries, it risks turning foreign companies away, and could tarnish the nation’s image as a global business hub. The program was announced in 2022 in a bid to promote fair hiring practices. Points are awarded for how a candidate’s salary compares with local peers, along
China last month enacted legislation to punish —including with the death penalty — “die-hard Taiwanese independence separatists.” The country’s leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), need to be reminded about what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has said and done in the past. They should think about whether those historical figures were also die-hard advocates of Taiwanese independence. The Taiwanese Communist Party was established in the Shanghai French Concession in April 1928, with a political charter that included the slogans “Long live the independence of the Taiwanese people” and “Establish a republic of Taiwan.” The CCP sent a representative, Peng
Japan and the Philippines on Monday signed a defense agreement that would facilitate joint drills between them. The pact was made “as both face an increasingly assertive China,” and is in line with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s “effort to forge security alliances to bolster the Philippine military’s limited ability to defend its territorial interests in the South China Sea,” The Associated Press (AP) said. The pact also comes on the heels of comments by former US deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger, who said at a forum on Tuesday last week that China’s recent aggression toward the Philippines in
The Ministry of National Defense on Tuesday announced that the military would hold its annual Han Kuang exercises from July 22 to 26. Military officers said the exercises would feature unscripted war games, and a decentralized command and control structure. This year’s exercises underline the recent reforms in Taiwan’s military as it transitions from a top-down command structure to one where autonomy is pushed down to the front lines to improve decisionmaking and adaptability. Militaries around the world have been observing and studying Russia’s war in Ukraine. They have seen that the Ukrainian military has been much quicker to adapt to