With the outcome of last month’s presidential election, the defeated Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should of course engage in soul searching. Its current effort, however, has turned into a power struggle rather than a scientific analysis of voter behavior and preparing a comeback. Meanwhile, the victorious Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has been busy arranging its Cabinet line up, and does not see any reason for reflection since it won the election.
In addition, having cast their ballots, voters have completed their mission, and the Central Election Commission (CEC) is taking a break — having smoothly completed its election duties — while also feeling that there is no need for reflection on the part of its members.
The DPP’s review has so far only been concerned with the future and its own self-interests. That is fine for the DPP, but what of the nation as a whole?
It would be of even greater importance for the further maturing of Taiwan’s democracy if voters, the KMT and the election commission also engaged in some reflection based on the principles of fair and free elections.
First, voters are the country’s masters and they have the freedom and right to choose. However, there have been constant rumors about the KMT’s vote-buying practices.
The question is whether voters can honestly say they never received any money or other benefits for voting for a certain candidate. Or did borough chiefs and local voting captains use KMT money to buy votes?
And why did so few people vote in the two referendums?
Second, KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) should also ask himself what the purposes were of the campaign funding he allocated to local officials and whether the money was strictly monitored or restricted from being used for illegal practices such as vote buying.
Did he investigate the alleged practice of KMT vote captains buying votes and is he willing to disclose the details of accounts designated for the party’s election campaigns?
Third, does the CEC think that existing electoral regulations can ensure justice and fairness of elections?
As presidential candidates already receive substantial subsidies from the government, should a cap be set on campaign contributions and the use of party assets?
Should the CEC audit the aggregate amount of the income and costs of a party’s election campaign from the day the presidential candidate is nominated until the end of the election?
And finally, why should the referendum and presidential ballots be picked up separately, since this makes it easier for vote buyers to monitor voters?
In order to prevent big contributions by individuals, organizations or businesses from giving them too much power to influence a candidate and to prevent campaign funds from being improperly or illegally used, it is necessary to monitor the sources of campaign funding and how the money is spent.
For example, US Federal Election Commission regulations stipulate that both senatorial and presidential candidates must file monthly and quarterly campaign income and expenditure reports, including a name list of contributors and the amounts of donations and prepare detailed accounts for later reference.
Donations from both individuals and organizations must be reported, and the income report includes loans, funds provided by the candidate him or herself, as well as legal, accounting, operational and fund raising expenses provided by others.
Such a policy should be implemented in Taiwan.
Shen Chieh is a US-based freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS