Campaigning for the Nov. 29 elections is beginning to pick up steam and members of the public are also getting excited about the nine-in-one elections, the biggest in the nation’s history in terms of the numbers of seats up for grabs.
According to the Central Election Commission (CEC), a record-high 11,130 public servants are to be chosen from about 20,000 hopefuls nationwide who have registered their candidacies for seats including mayors and councilors of the five special municipalities; commissioners and mayors of 16 counties and cities; and municipal, county and city councilors; township mayors; and borough and village wardens.
As the elections are expected to be contested more fiercely than ever, a civic group hoping to ensure fair vote tallies recently asked the CEC whether members of the public could film the vote-counting process with devices such as their smartphones from the polling stations’ observation areas.
The reply from the CEC baffled many.
The government agency in charge of elections’ administrative affairs said that would not be allowed because filming is banned during the vote-counting process to maintain order at polling stations.
The agency added that if it allowed onlookers at the polling stations to film the counting of votes, it could unintentionally “provide vote-buyers with an opportunity to check on their vote-buying results” and therefore end up encouraging such offenses.
However, the CEC’s reasoning is unconvincing.
The Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) stipulates that video and camera devices are banned from “voting stations in order to protect people’s right to secret ballots.”
This prohibition is more than reasonable, because allowing filming or photography at the voting stations could end up serving people involved in “mobilizing” votes and become a way for them to — in the CEC’s words — “check their vote-buying results.”
However, vote tallying is a different matter entirely.
Because votes are cast by secret ballot, there is no way for a photograph or video to link a voter’s identity to a vote tallied during the vote-counting process at any polling station.
In other words, the CEC’s concern about providing vote-buyers “an opportunity to check on their vote-buying result” is a nonissue.
As for its other reason — “maintaining poll station order” — one has to ask how in the world could a person interfere with the polling station’s count simply by filming the process on the sidelines from the onlookers’ area?
The nation has seen cases of foul play during the tallying of votes.
One notorious case was during the 1992 legislative election in Hualien, when then-Democratic Progressive Party legislative candidate Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介) was defeated by 62 votes, only to find out later that due to some sort of dirty trick, an extra 300 ballots had been cast for a district that had only about 500 eligible voters.
There have also been other cases of “bizarre incidents,” such as the “coincidence” of having electrical blackouts at polling stations during vote counts or a bag of ballots in favor of a specific candidate being discovered long after votes were counted.
As such, the CEC’s prohibition of filming during the vote count only fuels public suspicion and leads voters to wonder whether the government has something to hide.
Otherwise, why would it reject making the tallying of votes more transparent and derail a chance to allow broader citizen participation in the nation’s democracy?
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
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
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
RSS