As the battle over the razor-thin re-election won by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) continues, there is at least one grand irony in the charges being leveled by the losers, the pan-blue alliance.
The pan-blues have, among other things, charged that Taiwanese soldiers were prevented from voting because of a heightened state of alert ordered by the government on the afternoon of March 19, following the shooting of Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮).
While there is an ongoing debate over whether more than a few thousand additional troops were kept on base and prevented from returning home to vote, the issue is controversial because the Chen/Lu ticket won by fewer than 30,000 votes. The pan-blue camp also charges that many soldiers were kept on base deliberately to keep them from voting, and that most soldiers would have voted for the pan-blue ticket.
One may dispute how many additional troops were actually prevented from voting because the heightened alert, and what percentage of those disenfranchised soldiers and sailors would have voted for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) ticket, and even whether the heightened alert was justified or not. What has not been mentioned in all this debating, however, is the question of why soldiers on duty in Taiwan on an election day are prevented from voting in the first place.
In most democratic countries, this problem would never have arisen because there are procedures in place for absentee voting, and for changing one's registered residence for voting.
In the US, for instance, every state has a mail-in ballot option to make it easy for people who are traveling for work or school, are handicapped or hospitalized, or simply are at work while the polls are open, to cast a vote.
The procedure is simple: A qualified voter simply requests a ballot in writing from his county voter registrar. After the request is checked to make sure the requester is duly registered to vote, a ballot is mailed, along with two envelopes. The voter fills out the ballot, which is put into an unmarked envelope to maintain anonymity, and that envelope, which is opened and counted on election day, is mailed in the second larger envelope, which has the voter's identification, to be logged into the system to prevent the person from voting twice.
It is also easy in many democratic countries for citizens to transfer their voting registration from one jurisdiction to another with the signing of a form.
Students, for example, can easily register to vote in the town where they go to college, and soldiers can re-register in the town where they are stationed, so they don't have to rush home to vote on election day.
If Taiwan had such a system, many more people, including soldiers and citizens working, studying or traveling overseas, would be able to vote.
Certainly there are arguments against absentee ballots. In a society where vote-buying is still a problem, mail-in ballots could facilitate the process by making it easier for the vote-buyer to ensure that the voters he bribes actually cast their votes the way he wants. Still, the benefits of making voting easier should outweigh corruption.
The irony in all this is that the election law that bars absentee balloting and that makes it so difficult for Taiwanese voters, including soldiers, to re-register in the place they are currently living, was passed way back in 1995 by -- guess who? -- "the then-ruling KMT [which at that time included the PFP]. So the people who are now crying foul really have only themselves to blame.
Actually, I suspect that the KMT, which tends to be supported more among the business class and the more well-off in Taiwanese society, probably likes things this way. It is likely that the vast majority of those several hundred thousand voters who had enough money and free time to fly all the way to Taiwan from abroad just in order to cast their votes were pro-pan blue.
If those who had less money and time for such a trip -- overseas students, for example -- had been able to vote by mail, the pan blue overseas advantage probably would have been considerably less.
Dave Lindorff is a Fulbright senior scholar in residence at National Sun Yat-sen University.
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