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
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