The Central Election Commission (CEC) is set to announce today how ballots for elections and referendums will be handed out during next year's legislative and presidential elections.
Whichever method the committee opts for is bound to cause a furor, as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) remain at loggerheads over how voters should receive their ballots on election day. The DPP backs a one-step process (voters receive the ballot and referendum papers simultaneously) as it believes this will improve referendum turnout, while the KMT supports the two-step method used during the 2004 presidential election.
The statute governing the organization of the CEC means the Cabinet selects almost all of its members, giving the government control of the body and leading many observers to predict it will plump for the DPP's preferred modus operandi.
The KMT, skeptical of the CEC's ability to ignore DPP demands, has gone to great lengths to influence opinion in its favor, urging the commission not to change the established formula and staging demonstrations of the potential for confusion should a new method be employed.
But while some of the KMT's arguments do hold water, the despicable tactics it has used to try to ensure its will is obeyed -- raising the specter of cross-strait conflict and making all 18 counties and cities under its jurisdiction declare they will disobey any decree from the CEC requiring joint ballot distribution -- have only done damage to its image.
The prospect of having a majority of Taiwanese telling the KMT that they want their stolen assets returned or having them openly debase the myth that is the "Republic of China" is obviously too much for the party to bear.
In a mature democracy, political groups that want to defeat a referendum question launch a campaign in the hope of eliciting a "no" vote from the electorate; they do not instigate a rival poll whose only aim is to guarantee the original referendum fails, nor do they try to ensure the voting method used is conducive to the plebiscite's failure.
By behaving in this fashion the KMT is clearly demonstrating both its fear of the electorate and the party's anti-democratic nature.
The KMT hopes that the two-step method will cause voters either simply to forget to participate in the referendum -- as the DPP claims they did in 2004 -- or allow it to discourage or intimidate people into not voting at all.
On the other hand, after expending thousands of man-hours collecting the 800,000 or so signatures enabling each of the referendums to take place in the first place, the DPP should not have to rely on manipulating the CEC to help pass the plebiscites.
In the event the commission decides to keep the existing system, the DPP will need to come up with a strategy to ensure maximum participation on election day.
This should not be difficult and the DPP doesn't deserve to get a positive result if it is incapable of coming up with a solution to this problem. One or two party staffers outside each polling station reminding people not to forget the referendum would be a simple, yet effective, answer.
Of course, these staffers may be subject to intimidation from opposition-aligned thugs opposed to the plebiscites, but the dangwai movement and DPP never let years of similar treatment put them off in the past.
If the DPP is serious about making sure these referendums pass, then a few more scars should be the least of its worries.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS