The Central Election Commis-sion (CEC) announced on the night of March 20 after all ballots were counted that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) won re-election. However, the pan-blue losers took to the streets with very serious accusations of irregularities. The intense demonstration on election night has continued without any end in sight.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
For anyone who knows about the well-established balloting procedures in this country, vote-rigging is only in the memory of the past KMT authoritarianism.
In the elections nowadays, after the polls close, the ballot boxes are opened and ballots counted openly in front of any interested citizen who wants to attend. In addition, it has become common for representatives from different political parties to conduct onsite supervision of the counting. In Saturday's election, the same procedures were followed. The ballot-counting process was as transparent as it could be and not a single problem was cited by any one.
The demand of the pan-blue camp has shifted since the night of March 20 when Lien proposed a "review" of the ballots. A few hours later, the attorneys repre-senting the pan-blue camp sued the CEC to invalidate the election and demand the court seal all ballots. Then Lien wanted to have a recount, not just partial recount of the ballots from those polling stations that might have had "problems," but an overall recount.
The Taiwan High Court accepted the case, ordered all ballots to be sealed, was ready to examine the charges and go forward for a recount, even a total recount, if it was deemed it necessary after the hearings.
But because of a procedural error made by Lien, the court yesterday decided to throw out his case. Lien will have to decide whether to refile the lawsuit or seek another option.
But even before the court ruling, the demand of the pan-blues had become an administrative recount by the CEC, to bypass the possibly lengthy court-ordered recount process.
However, the law governing the presidential election does not provide the commission with such power and therefore a revision to the law is required to state specifically that the revision will apply to the already concluded election.
Chen agreed to such a measure on Tuesday and ordered the DPP legislative caucus to initiate such a proposal.
Since the sealed ballots have been in the custody of the court since Lien filed his case, he must withdraw his case so that the sealed ballots can be returned to the CEC for an administrative recount after the revision of the electoral law. This is a required due process.
To the amazement of the country, Lien rejected the proposal and ordered the KMT legislative caucus to boycott the proposal to revise the law. Lien then wanted Chen to declare a national emergency so that a recount could be done without a court ruling and other legal and legislative process.
People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) even issued an ultimatum demanding a meeting with Chen within 24 hours and a recount to begin in 48 hours.
The numerous shifts of Lien's demands make people suspect whether a fair and transparent legal procedure would satisfy him.
In an interview given to a prominent member of the international media, Lien went so far as to claim that "he would have difficulties in accepting the ruling of the court."
In another interview, he said that he would accept the result of the recount but he demanded a fresh election anyway. He also said that he could not control the crowd he brought to the Presidential Office square any more.
Meanwhile, an even larger demonstration has been planned by Lien for this Saturday. One PFP lawmaker proclaimed that the pan-blue side is staging a revolution and therefore it did not care about the laws of the land.
In the last few days, the most radical pan-blue politicians have taken the stage upon a sound truck in front of the Presidential Office building to make all kinds of outrageous but unsubstantiated allegations against Chen.
The pan-blue camp's actions, particularly through rounds of international press conferences, have confused the international community about the presidential election.
In turn, the pan-blue camp cites the lack of a congratulatory message from Washington to Chen as evidence that it has full backing from the US and the president's election is illegitimate, contrary to the fact that the CEC has made its official announcement in accordance with the law.
Taiwan had some problems after the 2000 presidential election when a blue-camp crowd blamed Soong's defeat on former president Lee Teng-hui (
For any young democracy to sustain and to flourish over time, the political elite's acceptance and their complete respect for the result of an election's results is the most fundamental rule of the game. A democracy should be run by the rule of law and political activities should be conducted through the due process of law, not overrun by demagogy and inflammatory but unsubstantiated allegations.
The loser in the election should learn how to bow out gracefully rather than turn sour.
Joseph Wu is deputy secretary-general to the president.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS