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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS