Investigations into vote-buying activities are already under way in the run-up to elections at the farmers' and fishermen's associations nationwide later this month. The thick accumulation of "black gold" (黑金) elements cannot possibly be cleaned up overnight after the transition of political power. However, elections at the farmers' associations are seen as an important battle in which to install "vote captains" in preparation for the legislative and county/city elections at the end of this year.
The results of a crackdown against vote-buying in the farmers' associations election is therefore seen as a barometer of the government's determination to eliminate black gold -- and an indicator of how clean the elections will be at the end of the year. For these reasons, the ongoing investigations have attracted considerable public attention.
What has been overlooked in this wave of investigations is that the Executive Yuan has recently approved amendments proposed by the Council of Agriculture to Article 18 of the Farmers' Association Election and Recall Law.
Under the current regulations, private organizations can adopt a "block vote" method, which allows each representative to vote for all seats on the organization's board. In comparison, the new amendments require a "limited vote," under which each representative can only vote for half the number of board seats up for grabs. For example, if a farmers' association is to elect a seven-member board, each representative can only vote for three members under the new regulations.
The new rules take effect with the upcoming elections. Such a small change in the election methods may have a major impact on the influence of local factions.
In terms of voting theory, the biggest problem with the block vote method is that it allows any group which can control more than half of the voters to win all the seats for which it is running. Therefore, it is extremely easy for any party which has a slight advantage to dominate the election, allowing no survival space for smaller parties.
Compared to elections for public representatives, it is generally easier to control voters in elections at Taiwan's private organizations and political parties -- which generally have smaller electorates. Any group which controls more than half of the votes -- either by itself or through a "vote exchange alliance" -- can easily win all the directors' and supervisors' seats because it can get voters to vote for a full board according to a "suggested name list." All the other parties, meanwhile, will get nothing.
This method, which was used in most past elections at farmers' associations, often resulted in two mutually hostile factions engaging in a battle of vote-buying. All kinds of extreme methods have been used, including bribery, intimidation and the so-called "collective pleasure trips" (
Any group which can control more than half of the membership representatives can win all the directors' seats -- and consequently the treasured chair-person's seat. The block vote method turns the elections into a zero-sum game and allows one faction to totally control the organizations. This in turn gives rise to all kinds of corruption and irregularities. If a "rotation of factions" takes place in the next election, it is an entire rival faction taking over and monopolizing the association's resources.
Under the new voting method, a faction will need to control more than two thirds of the membership representatives and also evenly allocate its votes in order to totally dominate the election. A smaller number of votes allowed for each voter makes it harder for any local faction to win all the seats. Therefore, the possibility of any one faction controlling the entire association will be lower as other factions will also be able to win some seats.
Problems in the grassroots farmers' associations are linked to the political and economic interests of political parties and local factions. Coupled with black gold elements, they are one of the most difficult issues in Taiwan's political and financial reforms. This small change made to the election regulations may be just a small step toward reforms, but it can have a far-reaching impact.
Wang Yeh-lih is chairman of the department of political science of Tunghai University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with