As the battle over the razor-thin re-election won by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) continues, there is at least one grand irony in the charges being leveled by the losers, the pan-blue alliance.
The pan-blues have, among other things, charged that Taiwanese soldiers were prevented from voting because of a heightened state of alert ordered by the government on the afternoon of March 19, following the shooting of Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮).
While there is an ongoing debate over whether more than a few thousand additional troops were kept on base and prevented from returning home to vote, the issue is controversial because the Chen/Lu ticket won by fewer than 30,000 votes. The pan-blue camp also charges that many soldiers were kept on base deliberately to keep them from voting, and that most soldiers would have voted for the pan-blue ticket.
One may dispute how many additional troops were actually prevented from voting because the heightened alert, and what percentage of those disenfranchised soldiers and sailors would have voted for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) ticket, and even whether the heightened alert was justified or not. What has not been mentioned in all this debating, however, is the question of why soldiers on duty in Taiwan on an election day are prevented from voting in the first place.
In most democratic countries, this problem would never have arisen because there are procedures in place for absentee voting, and for changing one's registered residence for voting.
In the US, for instance, every state has a mail-in ballot option to make it easy for people who are traveling for work or school, are handicapped or hospitalized, or simply are at work while the polls are open, to cast a vote.
The procedure is simple: A qualified voter simply requests a ballot in writing from his county voter registrar. After the request is checked to make sure the requester is duly registered to vote, a ballot is mailed, along with two envelopes. The voter fills out the ballot, which is put into an unmarked envelope to maintain anonymity, and that envelope, which is opened and counted on election day, is mailed in the second larger envelope, which has the voter's identification, to be logged into the system to prevent the person from voting twice.
It is also easy in many democratic countries for citizens to transfer their voting registration from one jurisdiction to another with the signing of a form.
Students, for example, can easily register to vote in the town where they go to college, and soldiers can re-register in the town where they are stationed, so they don't have to rush home to vote on election day.
If Taiwan had such a system, many more people, including soldiers and citizens working, studying or traveling overseas, would be able to vote.
Certainly there are arguments against absentee ballots. In a society where vote-buying is still a problem, mail-in ballots could facilitate the process by making it easier for the vote-buyer to ensure that the voters he bribes actually cast their votes the way he wants. Still, the benefits of making voting easier should outweigh corruption.
The irony in all this is that the election law that bars absentee balloting and that makes it so difficult for Taiwanese voters, including soldiers, to re-register in the place they are currently living, was passed way back in 1995 by -- guess who? -- "the then-ruling KMT [which at that time included the PFP]. So the people who are now crying foul really have only themselves to blame.
Actually, I suspect that the KMT, which tends to be supported more among the business class and the more well-off in Taiwanese society, probably likes things this way. It is likely that the vast majority of those several hundred thousand voters who had enough money and free time to fly all the way to Taiwan from abroad just in order to cast their votes were pro-pan blue.
If those who had less money and time for such a trip -- overseas students, for example -- had been able to vote by mail, the pan blue overseas advantage probably would have been considerably less.
Dave Lindorff is a Fulbright senior scholar in residence at National Sun Yat-sen University.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS