IN ANALYZING THE results of the legislative elections, it's clear that the number of seats each party won was not in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. Thanks to its strong campaigning, the pan-blue camp saw its votes concentrated in the right places, so that as many of its candidates as possible were elected. The low turnout helped the highly concentrated firepower of the pan-blue camp deal a fatal blow to the pan-green camp, whose votes were much more scattered.
Taking all eligible voters as a denominator, each of the two parties won only a small number of votes, and the difference between them was minor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 30 percent of votes, whereas a little more than 20 percent voted for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Thus the results of the election was influenced by not only those willing to cast their ballots, but also the unseen 40 or so percent.
However, the spirit of democracy means respecting the public's choices and decisions -- and the public can decide not only which party to vote for, but whether to vote at all.
Nevertheless, the reasons for voting or not voting should still be analyzed, especially as new voting districts were used. Some voting districts were even smaller than districts for local government elections. Banciao (
Such an election system obviously leads voters in a certain direction to some degree. Apart from that, the biggest problem in Taiwanese democracy again raised its head -- vote-buying. Many cases of alleged vote buying have already entered the judicial system. Just when will Taiwan's democracy rid itself of this stain? And just when will Taiwanese stop selling their votes and their integrity?
Perhaps democratic consciousness has not really taken root since the transfer of power. Perhaps democratic values, which create a democratic culture of consciousness, self-confidence and self-respect, are still not firmly established. If we are completely honest about this issue and continue to question why people still consider their votes something they can sell -- even after 50 years of elections -- we may find some answers. The following are some of the most noteworthy.
First, some voters seem to have drawn a distinction between democratic governance and voting. They see their vote as something that can be exchanged for immediate benefits, without taking democracy into consideration. In the process, they trample their own rights as citizens.
Second, there are still some voters who don't care about national identity and social justice. They make calculations based only on their own situations. They have little historic consciousness, sense of responsibility, or ideas and hopes for the future of their children and grandchildren. If their vote can bring them a few thousand dollars right away, they will sell out.
Third, people who sell their vote do not feel ashamed about their actions because they do not recognize the idea of a vision for the country, or really understand why a democracy cannot function well unless legislators represent actual public opinion.
To these people, vote-selling appears to have nothing to do with reasons or morals, and the idea that they should always do what is economically best for them lead them to a line of reasoning that only takes personal benefits into consideration. As a result, they rationalize this erroneous means of participating in democracy.
Yeh Hai-yen is a professor in Soochow University's Department of Philosophy.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS