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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
RSS