Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-hua (江宜樺) said recently that his ministry may implement a system for absentee voting in time for the special municipality elections in December. The proposal has met with a wave of criticism from the opposition.
Absentee voting is a good idea and a routine matter in many democracies. It guarantees the right to vote by assuring that voters are not deprived of the opportunity to do so simply because they work or live away from their voting district. As such, it is a sign of democratic progress. Previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administrations have considered implementing such a system, but never did so due to public sentiment.
It must be said, however, that if absentee voting is introduced without complementary measures, it could do more harm than good. Forcing through a decision could further intensify the standoff between the government and the opposition.
There are a number of concerns to consider. There is little trust between the government and the opposition. The lack of public debate on the issue also means that there is no consensus between the government, opposition and the public. If the ministry implements the system now — a time when the government is at its weakest position — the opposition will argue that the government is trying to use absentee voting to give it an advantage. Military, police, civil servants, teachers and businesspeople living in China — all traditionally seen as pan-blue supporters — constitute a large part of those who would benefit from absentee voting.
It remains unclear what voter groups the system would target. If it is targeted at people within Taiwan who live outside of their voting district and register beforehand, this can only be praised. If, however, the scope includes citizens abroad, the impact would be significant. This would lead the government to keep opening up toward China in hopes of wooing more votes from China-based Taiwanese businesspeople. At the same time, the Chinese government could influence how these businesspeople vote. If these businesspeople voted from China, election disputes could eventually affect political stability and intensify social polarization. The independence of Taiwan’s electoral system has yet to be firmly established.
In the past, military, civil servant and teacher organizations controlled voting by demanding that members vote for a certain candidate. There were reports of ballot manipulation or miscounts by electoral authorities. Introducing absentee voting too soon could lead to endless election disputes.
The attempt on then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) life in 2004 illustrated Taiwan’s susceptibility to election disputes. The military and police were put on a national security alert, and the pan-blue camp then said that the incident had been a plot to influence the vote, a claim that led to massive street demonstrations, with many refusing to accept the results of the election. Is Taiwan better prepared today to handle a severe election dispute, particularly in cases where poll results show a thin margin of victory?
The problem is not absentee voting in itself, but the lack of complementary measures and public information. Absentee voting will require more time for public debate and deliberation.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers