Article 59 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) states: “A supervisor in each polling station may be recommended by the candidates recommended by the political parties of which the obtained vote rate has totaled not less than 5 percent in the latest national integrated election.”
Evidently, political parties have engineered it so they can influence another aspect of the electoral process and how official agencies conduct elections.
Polling station supervisors can uphold the interests and confidence of the candidates, and each candidate — for a deposit of a specific amount — has the right to recommend a supervisor to represent them. Candidates who are not affiliated with any party, on the other hand, are left to their own devices and are often left fending off pervasive affronts by major parties.
It is difficult to see fairness or justice in only allowing political parties to recommend polling station supervisors, especially since most political parties tend to put their own interests before the nation’s or the public’s.
Therefore, it is clear that the political parties conspired to get some control over elections when they drafted Article 59 of the act, a process dominated by whichever party is in office. This is to be condemned in the strongest terms.
The electoral system ought to be built upon justice, fairness, independence and neutrality, as well as non-alignment with political parties; not on the whims of those parties. If major parties have a monopoly on the selection of polling station supervisors, if they can seek to benefit from the posts and interfere in this aspect of the voting process, then the public should harbor grave doubts about the integrity of the electoral system, especially given the sensitive nature of the polling station supervisor role.
This is collusion between the main parties to snuff out their smaller rivals, stifle emerging parties and squeeze out non-affiliated candidates.
The current political scene is in dire straits. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has proved it is ignorant, shameless, incompetent and utterly untrustworthy, as well as having a popularity rating of only 9 percent. The opposition has shown itself entirely unable to check corruption in the ruling party. How these parties can be trusted to have anything to do with how elections are conducted is beyond belief.
Article 55 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法) gives all candidates the right to recommend polling station supervisors, while Article 8 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act stipulates that “there shall be nonpolitical-party persons in an election commission, and the number of those who are in a same political party shall be not more than 2/5 of the total commissioners in the Central Election Commission, or 1/2 of the total commissioners in a municipal or county (city) election commission.”
This gives certain guarantees to non-party affiliated individuals, and acknowledges the importance of having non-party affiliations for the electoral process to be fair and just.
Articles 59 and 55 of the respective acts allow candidates to recommend polling station supervisors, but the former contradicts the spirit of the stipulation that “there shall be nonpolitical-party persons” in an election commission. Legislators should amend this irregularity promptly. Polling station supervisors must be recommended by each candidate, and the role of non-party affiliated candidates should be valued to establish fair and credible elections if the change is to have a positive impact on the development of democratic elections.
Huang Shih-cheng is a former chairman of the Central Election Commission.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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 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
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
RSS