With the outcome of last month’s presidential election, the defeated Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should of course engage in soul searching. Its current effort, however, has turned into a power struggle rather than a scientific analysis of voter behavior and preparing a comeback. Meanwhile, the victorious Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has been busy arranging its Cabinet line up, and does not see any reason for reflection since it won the election.
In addition, having cast their ballots, voters have completed their mission, and the Central Election Commission (CEC) is taking a break — having smoothly completed its election duties — while also feeling that there is no need for reflection on the part of its members.
The DPP’s review has so far only been concerned with the future and its own self-interests. That is fine for the DPP, but what of the nation as a whole?
It would be of even greater importance for the further maturing of Taiwan’s democracy if voters, the KMT and the election commission also engaged in some reflection based on the principles of fair and free elections.
First, voters are the country’s masters and they have the freedom and right to choose. However, there have been constant rumors about the KMT’s vote-buying practices.
The question is whether voters can honestly say they never received any money or other benefits for voting for a certain candidate. Or did borough chiefs and local voting captains use KMT money to buy votes?
And why did so few people vote in the two referendums?
Second, KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) should also ask himself what the purposes were of the campaign funding he allocated to local officials and whether the money was strictly monitored or restricted from being used for illegal practices such as vote buying.
Did he investigate the alleged practice of KMT vote captains buying votes and is he willing to disclose the details of accounts designated for the party’s election campaigns?
Third, does the CEC think that existing electoral regulations can ensure justice and fairness of elections?
As presidential candidates already receive substantial subsidies from the government, should a cap be set on campaign contributions and the use of party assets?
Should the CEC audit the aggregate amount of the income and costs of a party’s election campaign from the day the presidential candidate is nominated until the end of the election?
And finally, why should the referendum and presidential ballots be picked up separately, since this makes it easier for vote buyers to monitor voters?
In order to prevent big contributions by individuals, organizations or businesses from giving them too much power to influence a candidate and to prevent campaign funds from being improperly or illegally used, it is necessary to monitor the sources of campaign funding and how the money is spent.
For example, US Federal Election Commission regulations stipulate that both senatorial and presidential candidates must file monthly and quarterly campaign income and expenditure reports, including a name list of contributors and the amounts of donations and prepare detailed accounts for later reference.
Donations from both individuals and organizations must be reported, and the income report includes loans, funds provided by the candidate him or herself, as well as legal, accounting, operational and fund raising expenses provided by others.
Such a policy should be implemented in Taiwan.
Shen Chieh is a US-based freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS