The Central Election Commission (CEC) is set to announce today how ballots for elections and referendums will be handed out during next year's legislative and presidential elections.
Whichever method the committee opts for is bound to cause a furor, as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) remain at loggerheads over how voters should receive their ballots on election day. The DPP backs a one-step process (voters receive the ballot and referendum papers simultaneously) as it believes this will improve referendum turnout, while the KMT supports the two-step method used during the 2004 presidential election.
The statute governing the organization of the CEC means the Cabinet selects almost all of its members, giving the government control of the body and leading many observers to predict it will plump for the DPP's preferred modus operandi.
The KMT, skeptical of the CEC's ability to ignore DPP demands, has gone to great lengths to influence opinion in its favor, urging the commission not to change the established formula and staging demonstrations of the potential for confusion should a new method be employed.
But while some of the KMT's arguments do hold water, the despicable tactics it has used to try to ensure its will is obeyed -- raising the specter of cross-strait conflict and making all 18 counties and cities under its jurisdiction declare they will disobey any decree from the CEC requiring joint ballot distribution -- have only done damage to its image.
The prospect of having a majority of Taiwanese telling the KMT that they want their stolen assets returned or having them openly debase the myth that is the "Republic of China" is obviously too much for the party to bear.
In a mature democracy, political groups that want to defeat a referendum question launch a campaign in the hope of eliciting a "no" vote from the electorate; they do not instigate a rival poll whose only aim is to guarantee the original referendum fails, nor do they try to ensure the voting method used is conducive to the plebiscite's failure.
By behaving in this fashion the KMT is clearly demonstrating both its fear of the electorate and the party's anti-democratic nature.
The KMT hopes that the two-step method will cause voters either simply to forget to participate in the referendum -- as the DPP claims they did in 2004 -- or allow it to discourage or intimidate people into not voting at all.
On the other hand, after expending thousands of man-hours collecting the 800,000 or so signatures enabling each of the referendums to take place in the first place, the DPP should not have to rely on manipulating the CEC to help pass the plebiscites.
In the event the commission decides to keep the existing system, the DPP will need to come up with a strategy to ensure maximum participation on election day.
This should not be difficult and the DPP doesn't deserve to get a positive result if it is incapable of coming up with a solution to this problem. One or two party staffers outside each polling station reminding people not to forget the referendum would be a simple, yet effective, answer.
Of course, these staffers may be subject to intimidation from opposition-aligned thugs opposed to the plebiscites, but the dangwai movement and DPP never let years of similar treatment put them off in the past.
If the DPP is serious about making sure these referendums pass, then a few more scars should be the least of its worries.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS