On March 19, I wrote a column discussing the Taiwan Network for Free Elections' concerns about the quality of Taiwan's elections. At the time, our organization worried about being seen as uncharitable. In light of all the post-election controversy, it is worth reviewing our concerns.
First, the only threat we saw to free elections was that vote-buying could not be said to have been eliminated. We did not worry about election fraud at polling stations because the system of voting and counting in Taiwan is transparent and well-organized, and in particular because the system of monitoring by party agents is working properly.
Therefore the post-election accusations of widespread fraud are simply not credible.
We also were concerned that the referendum boycott and the way the referendum was conducted could combine to create a new threat to ballot secrecy.
This issue turned out to be a genuine problem, as was demonstrated most eloquently by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
His desire to conceal his choice was apparently considered more important than that of the many ordinary voters who reported feeling nervous or under pressure when deciding whether or not to approach the referendum table.
We were more concerned about issues of fairness. The issues of party assets and campaign financing, despite passage of a new law just before the election, still demand considerable attention.
Likewise, we have seen no improvement in the professional or ethical quality of the news media, which during the election and its aftermath have continued to act as political advocates rather than as observers.
A final concern we raised turned out to directly relate to the post-election controversy. This was the politicization of the electoral authorities, a problem that was evident throughout the preparations for the referendum. Instead of being a potential problem for the future, as we worried then, this politicization of officials whose objectivity is critical to performance of their duties has become a pressing public concern.
Public trust in these election authorities has been undermined, and this not only enabled the pan-blues to stoke the anger of their followers, but now is compli-cating efforts to bring the affair to a proper conclusion.
The recount raises a host of new fairness issues as well. To be frank, the pan-blues are justified in calling for such a recount, simply because of the narrowness of the margin of victory. It is reasonable to check the ballots again in order to consolidate public confidence in the result.
However, in order for the recount to achieve these worthy aims, it must not only be fair, but also be seen as fair.
The quality of the process is clearly paramount, and its speed is only a second-order consideration. A rushed recount would fail to earn public trust, and a botched process would create serious controversies where sus-picions and innuendos existed before.
Thus the pan-blues' high-decibel demands after the vote for an "immediate" recount were unreasonable. The only step that was necessary to take immediately was the securing of the ballots, which was in fact done very quickly.
After that, the two sides should have begun a rational process of negotiation to plan a recount. Unfortunately, this has not gone as smoothly as hoped.
In addition to dragging the election administration into the mud, the pan-blue legal team's tactics showed contempt for the judicial system's integrity.One example of this mistrust of blind justice is the pan-blues' withdrawing and refiling their lawsuit to ensure it would be heard by judges that suited them.
When the negotiation process finally began, it faced many contentious issues. Although people may be frustrated at this slow progress, both sides must be able to fully air their positions before the recount begins. The fact that the issues are tricky only proves that a recount could not have been carried out "immediately."
Whatever the symbolic benefit of completing a recount before the May 20 inauguration ceremony, it would be wrong to hurry the process to meet that deadline. Such rushing would only spoil the hard work that has been done, and a last-minute announcement of a result would only stir up emotions on both sides.
From what we have seen so far, the High Court judges in charge of the case are making the right moves. First, the decision that each local court should simply screen out mutually acceptable ballots, referring all questionable ones to the High Court, seems a good idea. This will avoid one of the central problems in Florida, where each locality had a different standard for judging ballot validity (remember the hanging chads?). Of course this will take more time, but it's worth it.
Second, the April 28 decision to uphold the standards for ballot validity promulgated by the Central Election Commission before the election is correct. In principle, a "loose standard" that allows as many ballots to be counted as possible, as long as the voter's intent can be clearly identified, protects the right to vote for the maximum number of people.
However, a strict standard can help to reduce vote-buying by narrowing the range of possible identifying marks on ballots.
This is a legitimate public interest in Taiwan, and the Legislative Yuan, led by the pan-blues, decided last year to strike the balance in favor of increased strictness. Any changes to the standard must not be applied retroactively.
The court's ruling on voter lists is also correct. The only plausible reason to check voter lists is to check for the possibility of multiple voting. However, Taiwan's system of stamping ID cards and checking them against lists generated from the household registration database already provides better safeguards against multiple voting than exist in most countries.
The role of voter lists in a recount is to provide a cross-check on the number of ballots used in each polling station: Does it match the number of voters? Next, one must check whether this number, plus the number of unused ballots, equals the total number of ballots supplied to the polling station beforehand.
If all these numbers match, there is no need for further investigation of the voter list for that polling station, and the recount can proceed. Only if there is any discrepancy should a particular list be examined more closely. Either side may, with sufficient evidence, apply for investigation of specific cases, and the court's ruling preserves this right.
At the end of our last article, we warned that it was "no time for complacency." Surely no one is complacent today.
Now we need to be patient and work hard to set good precedents and upgrade election procedures. If we do, this crisis can make Taiwan's democracy stronger than ever.
Bo Tedards is a coordinator of the Taiwan Network for Free Elections.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS