On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured by two bullets as they took part in a motorcade. The shooting provoked a confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps that lasted for many years. Just before last month’s elections for mayors, councilors and borough wardens in five special municipalities, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politician Sean Lien (連勝文) was injured by a gunshot during a campaign rally.
Whatever the motive for these attacks and whatever effect they may have had on the elections, what is certain is public discussion and speculation about the incidents have greatly harmed Taiwan’s democratic electoral system. Legislative measures are needed to prevent such incidents from happening again.
The nation’s election and recall laws should be amended so that elections would automatically be suspended in the event of a firearms attack. The amendment could be worded as follows: “In the event of an attack using firearms against a candidate, or a candidate’s spouse or close relative, or an election campaign worker, at a public poll campaign site or during a campaign activity, within 48 hours before a legislative election or an election for a councilor or mayor in a special municipality, the Central Election Commission shall announce a delay of one week in the timing of the election.”
The reasons for such an amendment are as follows:
First, it would promote fair elections. The value of democratic elections is that, through periodic popular participation, they enable virtuous people who are genuinely capable of governing and engaging in political deliberations to emerge by winning the favor of rational voters. Elections are not supposed to involve shootings that influence the result by generating sympathy votes, so that diligent and conscientious candidates see all their years of hard work suddenly reduced to nothing, while voters’ desire for a virtuous and capable politician comes to naught. When this occurs, it badly undermines a democratic system.
Second, it would reduce confrontation and its social cost. Whether the shooting is motivated by politics or a personal grudge, politicians will seek to use it to influence elections. There is no way of judging scientifically and precisely how much influence it may actually have. The pan-blue and the pan-green camps are bound to have their own interpretations of the event and media pundits will draw their own conclusions, while voters will tend to believe whichever side they support. This will only deepen the social rift and increase mistrust.
Third, it would stop firearm attacks from happening again and again. By delaying the election for a week, it would make it impossible for assailants who use violence to air their grievances or to smear political opponents from achieving their purpose. During the interim, the various political camps would demand that the police and prosecution act swiftly to find out and publicize the true facts of the case.
Even if the authorities fail to clear up the case during this period, the delay would allow time for voters to calm down, thereby minimizing the number of sympathy votes and their effect on elections. If potential attackers are denied the opportunity to influence elections, they would be discouraged from resorting to such extreme actions.
Some people may argue that delaying an election by a week would increase the social burden and costs of campaigning, but when compared with the grievous consequences of election results being thrown into doubt because of shooting incidents, it is a small price to pay.
Tim Hsu is an ssociate professor of law at Chinese Culture University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath