Taiwan’s democratization is a proud achievement. The country’s transformation without bloodshed from authoritarianism to a genuine democracy has been lauded as a success story and the consolidation of its democracy through five presidential elections has been hailed as a beacon of democracy in Asia. However, how are people in Taiwan to take pride in the nation’s democratic achievements when dirty tricks are allegedly used to influence elections?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Division (SID) closed its investigation into Yu Chang Biologics Co and concluded that former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was not involved in any wrongdoing.
However, considering the Jan. 14 presidential election was some time ago and how many voters at the time — following a months-long campaign by the pan-blue camp accusing Tsai of irregularities in the case — likely went to the polls with a negative impression of Tsai, has it not occurred to the SID that its investigation results came a little too late?
Many people cannot help but wonder whether the prosecutors were helping a certain candidate by playing along with the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) attack on Tsai’s character. The goal of the attack was achieved — Tsai lost the election.
The SID launched the investigation into the Yu Chang case in late November, a time when the presidential campaign was reaching fever pitch, with various polls suggesting Tsai and Ma were neck-and-neck. Noting this, many people have reason to doubt whether the neutrality of the state apparatus under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been breached.
With Tsai’s integrity intact and with the closure of the SID’s case with no indictment, some people are questioning the legitimacy of Ma’s election.
However, one question as important as the growing doubt surrounding Ma’s legitimacy is the emergence of a disturbing pattern compromising the health of the nation’s democracy: the use of a dirty trick to impede an election result.
Before the Yu Chang case, there was the shooting of Sean Lien (連勝文), son of former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), during a campaign rally for a KMT candidate for the New Taipei City (新北市) council on the eve of the Nov. 17 special municipality elections in 2010.
Many recalled how, until then, a number of polls indicated then-DPP New Taipei City mayoral candidate Tsai had a good chance of winning the race. However, following the subsequent campaign rhetoric from the KMT and its supporters that the attack was related to the election and that the DPP stood for violence, the impact of the shooting was obvious. The DPP won only two of the five special municipalities, rather than the three it had been expected to win. Then-DPP Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) also suffered a larger-than-expected vote loss to incumbent Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) of the KMT.
These incidents prove the concerns expressed in a report by the International Election Observation Mission that the Jan. 14 elections were “mostly free, but only partly fair,” noting violations of administrative neutrality as among the “worrying factors” that may have affected the election outcome.
More than any other Taiwanese who value the nation’s democratic credentials, the opposition should take the lead in standing up and denouncing those who use dirty tricks to influence elections.
In a sportsmanlike fashion, Tsai said she hoped “there will be no similar nasty besmirching tactics in future election campaigns.”
That statement alone should not be the end of it.
If the DPP cannot toughen up in the face of clear dirty tricks against its former chairperson and presidential candidate, many wonder how likely it is that rubbishing tactics will be deployed again, come the 2016 presidential election.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS