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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS