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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS