There has been a lot of talk about whether the ballots for the upcoming referendums on joining the UN should be issued simultaneously with those for the presidential election. The Central Election Committee (CEC) recently held a meeting to decide the issue, but because of opposition by some pro-blue committee members, it did not reach a final decision.
The "one stage" voting procedure means that when voters enter the voting venue, they would be issued ballots for both the presidential election and the various referendums at the same time.
Voters would have to drop the ballot for the presidential election and those for the referendums into different boxes.
The "two stage" voting procedure, for its part, means that ballots are issued separately. After voters have received their ballot for the presidential election and have voted, they go back to receive ballots for the referendums and vote again.
Legality of these two voting procedures is not disputed and voters are surely competent enough to deal with either.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the pan-blue media and politicians oppose the "one-stage" procedure with such fervor, demonizing whenever they can. They even rallied 18 mayors and county commissioners to collectively protest it. To such fanaticism, the only reply is: Don't get so worked up about it.
Generally speaking, the "one-stage" voting procedure is an easier and simpler way of issuing ballots and voting, and it can save a lot of unnecessary manpower and work. On the other hand, using the "two stage" procedure can prevent the problem of people dropping their ballot in the wrong box.
The controversy stem from the fact that issuing all ballots at the same time would be the most effective in terms of increasing the turnout in the referendums.
The outcome of the 2004 referendums shows that if the ballots are issued separately, many people will not know that after voting in one election, they need to pick up another ballot and vote again. This lowered the turnout in the referendum. At the time, many voters who wanted to vote in the referendum complained that they didn't know they had to get into another line.
Because of the way the exits were placed, voters walked straight out of the voting venue after voting in the presidential election and afterwards could not go back in again to vote in the referendum.
Taiwan's democracy has matured a great deal and its people have a lot of experience with voting. Issuing all ballots at the same time would therefore not cause any problems.
Also, referendums are the means for the public to express its opinion, and the system should be designed to encourage voting. Whether the ballots are issued separately or simultaneously, voters will still receive the ballots for voting in the two referendums -- "entering the UN" and "returning to the UN" -- at the same time, which should increase turnout for both.
Why does the pan-blue camp think using the "one stage" voting procedure would only benefit the Democratic Progressive Party? If they worry that issuing ballots simultaneously will increase turnout in the referendums, are they really going to say that their own referendum about "returning to the UN" was only a front?
Looking at the way voting is organized in other countries or states with a mature referendum system, like Switzerland, Denmark or California, it becomes clear that when referendums are combined with important elections, the "one-stage" voting procedure is the norm.
The focus in these countries is on simplifying elections and making things easy for voters. The procedures in the above-mentioned places differ a bit: In some, two or more ballots are issued at the same time, but after voting the ballots are all dropped into the same box. Other countries let voters vote on various issues on different parts of the same ballot.
The implementation of the "two stage" voting procedure in the 2004 referendums was an original idea of Taiwan.
Recently, three elections were combined into one. The ballots for this election were issued simultaneously and had to be dropped into different boxes, yet there was no chaos.
Why would Taiwan have to go against the global norm?
The above-mentioned pan-blue mayors and county commissioners recently published a joint statement saying that the legislative and presidential elections and the referendums require a "two stage" voting procedure. Legally speaking, the CEC is the central authority on electoral matters. As such, it is responsible for ordering, supervising and handling national elections.
Mayors and county commissioners are only entrusted with the actual carrying out of the elections. The CEC should insist on its authority and demand local election committees to follow instructions to the letter.
If anyone goes against these instructions, the CEC has the responsibility to thoroughly investigate the case.
Taiwan must not be allowed to sink into a bizarre situation of "one country, two voting systems."
Lee Chun-yi is director of the Presidential Office's Constitutional Reform Office.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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