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
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