After remaining silent and appearing defenseless in the face of pan-blue defiance over the one-step voting procedure, high-ranking officials from the central government finally got tough yesterday, reiterating the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration's stance that it would implement the procedure for the Jan. 12 legislative elections and referendums as decreed by the Central Election Commission (CEC).
President Chen Shui-bian (
Chang also said that using a two-step voting format would be against the law should the pan-blue local governments go ahead with it.
It is about time the central government toughened up and put the wrangling to rest.
The pan-blues insist on a two-step voting procedure, arguing that the one-step voting formula adopted by the CEC would create confusion for voters and result in disputes at polling stations on election day.
But what's so confusing about it?
Under the one-step format, voters will receive two ballots for the legislative elections and two referendum ballots at the same time and then cast them into four different boxes. So, are the pan-blues saying that Taiwanese voters are too stupid to follow instructions as simple as picking up four ballots and casting them into four different boxes?
According to the Election and Recall Law for Civil Servants (
The pan-blues' proposed two-step voting format would infringe upon voters' rights by exposing their preference to vote for the referendums should they have to collect their referendum ballots after voting in the legislative election.
Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (
The central government therefore, rather than engaging in a tiresome spat with the pan-blue local governments, has an even more important task at hand -- assuring the safety of voters when they go to polling stations.
Officials from the central government should issue a strong message to the electorate and promise that those who vote in pan-blue-governed constituencies will not face harassment or arrest when they demand to use the one-step voting procedure.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS