For the sake of winning political power, sharing it among themselves and enjoying the benefits, the “blue” Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the “white” Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have not given up on their idea of forming a “blue-white” alliance to contest the “green” Democratic Progressive Party in January’s presidential election.
In addition to the obvious practical problem of each party having its own agenda, the ongoing negotiations involve a lesser-known legal obstacle, namely the question of horse trading and electoral bribery, as detailed in Article 84 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法).
Article 84 stipulates that: “Anyone who makes a candidate or a person qualified for a candidate agree to abandon the campaign or to perform certain campaign activities by asking for expected promises or delivering bribes or other undue benefits to the aforesaid party shall be condemned to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years.”
It further states that: “Any candidate or any person qualified for a candidate who asks for expected promises or accepts bribes or other undue benefits and thereupon promises to abandon the campaign or perform certain campaign activities shall also be punished in accordance with the provision of the preceding paragraph.”
Furthermore, it says that: “Anyone planning to commit the crimes referred to in the preceding two paragraphs shall be condemned to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than one year.”
This provision, which has existed since Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996, is a fairly strict prohibition on election bribery.
It might not be easy for the public to understand such a provision. Simply put, it means the following:
First, no person, including a presidential or vice presidential candidate who is currently engaged in electioneering activities, even if they are not yet registered as a candidate, is allowed to engage in horse trading with these contenders by offering them money or positions, such as asking them to switch to being a vice presidential or presidential candidate, or to withdraw from competing in the presidential and vice presidential election and instead be appointed to a position such as premier.
Second, if these teams of people qualified to stand as candidates ask or obtain the agreement of other candidates’ team members to become president or vice president or to give up their candidacy, with the offer of later giving them a position such as that of premier, this also constitutes election bribery by way of horse trading. Furthermore, preparing to engage in this kind of horse trading is also punishable by imprisonment of up to one year.
Some voters might wonder if such behavior is such a serious matter. This provision, severe as it is, was passed by the legislature at a time when the KMT held a majority of legislative seats.
Do not imagine that nobody is keeping an eye on secret negotiations, and then, if news of such negotiations or their result comes to light and prosecutors start to investigate the case, turn around and moan about political persecution.
Most politicians think that the first step is the hardest, and as long as they are elected, other legal obstacles should not be a problem. Taiwan is a democracy where the rule of law prevails and any legal dispute would be laid out in the light of day, so how could people be stuck in that old mentality? If, for the sake of huge interests and the power of being in government, they place a heavy bet like a gambler, would they be able to escape from the eyes of the law? Even if they do, could they escape from the fair judgement of the voters?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS