The sensational accusations that received much attention since the election have come to an end, as the pan-blue camp once again turns to the judicial system for relief. From the recovery in the stock market and the vitality of other businesses, it does seem that the divisions rent in society by the election have healed to a certain extent. However, underneath this apparent harmony looms the recent controversy and the dissatisfaction that it has bred.
The bickering has been taken beyond the courts, moving the election battle into overtime. When the combatants finally get the verdict from the courts, I suspect that this will merely resolve the matter in legal terms: the likelihood is that these actions will not bring an end to the political controversy.
The crux of the matter lies in what can actually be achieved within the framework of the law.
This election was held according to the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (總統副總統選舉罷免法), amended last October. Any issues regarding the fairness of the election and the procedures to be followed in dealing with any subsequent controversy should follow these "game rules" that were agreed upon prior to the event.
Whether or not the election is annulled, or whether the winner should continue as president, fall within the jurisdiction of the Taiwan High Court, which should proceed according to the stipulations of the above mentioned law. The court need only consider Article 102 and Article 104 of the law. The former concerns only whether it can be proven that the law was broken by an election commission of any level, and whether this was sufficient to have influenced the election results. The scope of the latter is limited to questions over the counting of the ballots, or surrounding any cheating or rigging and buying of votes that may affect the final results.
Now, the lawyers of the pan-blues have announced that they will claim that a miscount, the linking of voting for the election and the referendum, the assassination attempt and the subsequent activation of a national-security mechanism all influenced the vote.
First the pan-blue camp has to get over the hurdle of whether there is sufficient evidence to back up their claims. Even if they succeed, there is still the matter of trying to equate, in legal terms, the referendum, the shooting and the national-security mechanism with vote rigging, corruption or vote buying as a basis for the annulment of the election.
Despite the fact that Article 112 allows for the use of the Code of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟法) in the litigation process, it does not permit the free interpretation, or simplification, of procedures on the part of the individuals involved in the suit. The ideas that the two parties agree to an immediate recount, or even an annulment and subsequent re-election, do not conform to the original rules that both sides acknowledged prior to the election.
Strictly speaking, these can only be viewed as "new rules added after the event," hasty amendments that, given the legal principle that no changes can be applied retroactively, should only take effect as of the next election. Naturally, in judging the necessity of a complete recount, the court should make an independent decision based on the evidence, and not be constrained by the desires of the plaintiffs and defendants.
In fact, the issue of the pedantic interpretation of the law had already appeared when the court overruled the pan-blues' original case. Should the court, after all, have ignored due process and accepted the premature filing of the suit simply to speed the case up? In the end the court opted to follow a strict interpretation of the law regardless of the political importance of the case.
Nevertheless, isn't this precisely part of the built-in safety mechanism designed to level the political playing field? If due process were abandoned simply because of the political importance of this situation, it would open up a Pandora's Box, with every future political controversy having to be dealt with as a special case beyond the law.
In terms of the so-called "Shooting Investigation Team" of foreign forensics experts, it will have, at best, an equal amount of clout as those of forensic scientists appointed by the two parties and the court. It is the constitutional responsibility of the judge of the full court to make an objective assessment based on the law, concerning whether the results of the forensic tests prove that any cheating took place, and whether this constitutes a legal basis for an annulment. He need not, and indeed should not, bend the law in view of the potential political implications of his ruling.
The fundamental spirit behind the rule of law is that any ruling should be based on clearly defined laws established prior to the event in question, regardless of the identity or political status of the individuals involved.
In deciding who is right, and who is wrong, in the election controversy, the law has to work with a limited amount of factors to preserve the rules of the game and maintain the basic amount of trust needed between the candidates, elected individuals and the electoral institutions.
If this were not the case future confrontations would lack an objective measure with which to judge them by. In addition, the ability to quell political arguments surrounding the suspicions of the shooting incident, the libel and slander suits arising from gossipmongering, and the damage done to government agencies, fall beyond the scope of the law. Because of this, we cannot rely only on the specific application of the law within this election case to cure the ills of society precipitated by the controversy.
For that, we also need the politicians in both camps to respect the law, think of a way to create a win-win situation and not focus solely on their own interests.
Howard Shyr is the director of the Institute of Financial and Economic Law at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under