During a Taiwan High Court hearing held on Wednesday, a consensus was reached between the parties in the lawsuit filed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
But at least there has been progress. A decision was reached at the hearing to begin the recount before May 10. However, although both sides agreed that the recount should take place within the court, it is doubtful whether the recount will be completed in a timely fashion. So far, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has come up with a list of nearly 500 attorneys who are willing to participate in the recount free of charge, which means the DPP's portion of the recount could be completed within seven to 10 days. However, the pan-blue camp has only provided a list of 312 attorneys to date, which means that its portion of the recount could take two weeks or more. To speed up the recount process, the list of pan-blue recount personnel should expand to include professionals other than attorneys, such as accountants.
A more serious problem may be found in the KMT-PFP request that the criteria for determining void ballots be amended for the recount. This is utterly ridiculous, of course, as it attempts to change the rules which applied to the original count. The sole purpose of the recount is to determine whether any mistakes were made in counting the votes the first time around, based on the criteria issued by the Central Election Commission.
The KMT-PFP alliance is arguing that three categories of ballots regarded by the commission as void should be considered valid. It bases this on Article 60 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Recall Law (總統副總統選舉罷免法), which states that only when markings on a ballot are beyond recognition should the ballot be considered invalid.
The commission is authorized by this law to apply specific criteria in identifying void ballots, criteria which were applied in all previous elections without any dispute.
If the KMT and the PFP alliance had any complaint with the criteria, then they should have spoken up before the election, not after, let alone ask for different criteria to be applied in a recount. And need we remind people that the current criteria, as amended, were approved by a legislature in which the pan-blue camp enjoys a majority?
Even if the KMT-PFP alliance genuinely believed that they had been wronged in amending criteria identifying void ballots, they should seek a solution in the Legislative Yuan by adopting new criteria for future elections that satisfy the requirements of Article 60 of the recall law, rather than asking for a retroactive application of new criteria in the recount.
If the two sides cannot resolve their differences on this issue, it is possible that the recount will not be completed before the presidential inauguration on May 20. Such are the consequences when people who ought to know better play fast and loose with the law.
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