The legislature stirred up controversy by debating whether absentee voting for all citizens should be introduced. Even though pan-blue legislators emphasized that such a system is common in democratic countries, they were unable to hide the fact that this proposal was seen as a potential tool in the cut-throat world of election strategy.
Opening up a full absentee voting system, some argue, would benefit the pan-blue camp. But this proposal, which is so fixated on the votes themselves that it lacks any assessment of its consequences, would in fact create far more problems than it would resolve in ensuring fair elections.
Many democracies have instituted absentee voting policies. Implementing these systems has given rise to some problems, but none that could not be overcome. In recent years, the Democratic Progressive Party has proposed an absentee voting plan in the hope of ensuring the rights of Taiwanese who cannot return to their registered address to vote.
The recent proposal by the pan-blue camp, however, was designed to allow absentee voting for all voters at home and abroad. In light of the nation's unique challenges, not only would there be technical problems in implementing such a plan, but it would also open the back door for greater Chinese influence upon the nation's internal affairs.
As Taiwan does not have diplomatic relations with most countries, managing absentee voting would be exceptionally difficult. If Taiwanese volunteers living in Niger wanted to exercise their voting rights, for example, where should they go to pick up their ballots? Considering that a long-term white-collar businessperson living in New York could vote through the Taiwan representative office there, wouldn't this violate the rights of Taiwanese living in Niger? Wouldn't this kind of approach discriminate against certain nationals living overseas?
If volunteers in Africa can't vote but company bosses in the US can, how should this implicit class discrimination be resolved?
Aside from administrative issues, the more serious problem with absentee voting is that giving voting rights to Taiwanese businesspeople in China could influence the freedom and fairness of elections.
Taiwanese workers in China can return home to vote, which provides some superficial protection for the right to free and fair elections. If these people are allowed to vote in absentia in China, Taiwanese electoral agencies will not be able to validate them in China, nor will they be able to distribute ballots through governmental organizations. Not to mention how difficult it would be to protect voters' anonymity in an undemocratic country like China.
The pan-blue camp has dressed up its proposal in such a way as to make it appear that it promotes the interests of absentee voters. But it has failed to consider that the technical issues with such a policy would lead to discrimination and make it impossible to guarantee fair elections. If this proposal is pushed through, it could create even more electoral disputes and deprive people of their actual voting rights.
A better approach would be to first use a draft proposal requesting that the Central Election Commission appraise the technical difficulties associated with a full absentee voting system and devise ways to overcome them. In addition, the rights of Taiwanese in the country who, like election workers or miltary personnel, are unable to return home and vote should be guaranteed. If we truly want to protect the voting rights of citizens, we should begin with these humble measures rather than allow ourselves to be mesmerized by the promise of votes coming out of China.
Chen Chi-yu is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator. Li To-tzu is a legislative assistant.
Translated by Marc Langer
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath