Back in 1996, the media reported on a 2,500-table campaign dinner sponsored by a steel magnate from southern Taiwan for former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). An event of this scale had never been seen before.
At that time the Ministry of Justice's definition of vote-buying was relatively loose, even though the minister of justice then was Ma Ying-jeou (
As it turns out, allegations of misconduct surrounding the campaigns of two Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates, Chen and Luo Wen-chia (羅文嘉), had an influence on the result in this year's local government elections. According to these allegations, Chen had offered free dinner tickets as an inducement to vote for him, while Luo was accused of giving potential voters NT$150 each as a "travel allowance" so that they could attend his campaign rally. The media also had their fun, saying that Chen had shot himself in the foot by insisting on a stricter definition of what constitutes vote-buying.
There is a lot of uncertainty about what constitutes vote-buying. Supporters buying dinner vouchers for friends and relatives, using their own money to pay for 10 or 20 tables and providing free dinners at which candidates can try to convince people to vote for them are all considered vote-buying practices. But what about a candidate's campaign headquarters doling out free fried noodles, fish-ball soup and soft drinks, worth a total of NT$30? Lunch boxes, refreshments, T-shirts, caps and waterproofs given out during campaign events could cost around NT$100 each. And isn't providing free tour buses to take supporters to campaign rallies the same as giving them a "travel allowance?"
If the general public agrees to apply stricter standards to what we consider vote-buying, this is a mark of progress. On the other hand, that won't be easy when many of these practices have in the past been considered socially acceptable by the majority of people.
But what exactly are we trying to achieve by regulating campaigners' conduct during these elections? And is it possible to achieve these objectives?
Traditionally, local politics has been predominantly partisan in nature. After many years of KMT rule, local party groups have been the main mechanism in which politics has been conducted. Money politics and corruption have gradually taken hold under this system, which has seen the monopolization of political resources and subsequent distribution of financial resources. Vote-buying and free dinners are a pretty minor manifestation of this whole system.
Ridding us of the bankroll power and political corruption that took hold during the Martial Law era will naturally have a positive effect on the development of our democracy and elections. But you have to ask whether legal teams using so many human and material resources just to investigate the alleged handing out of trifling amounts of money or NT$3,000-per-table dinners is actually going to help us achieve this aim.
Chiu Tai-san (
Chiu's words seem to indicate that the government is failing to see the forest for the trees in going after minor issues such as the handing out of travel subsidies.
After the DPP came to power, Chen Ding-nan went after corruption, and so certain kinds of behavior were no longer allowed. But this just meant that people such as China Steel chairman Lin Wen-yuan (
The Election and Recall Law (
The administration has been assiduous in searching out minor instances of vote-buying, while at the same time the DPP is becoming involved with various unsavory local factions in Yunlin, Chiayi County, Miaoli, Taitung and other places. Even before reforming basic political behavior, the DPP has already gotten its fingers dirty.
This kind of behavior makes the voters lose faith in the very idea of reform. They have become weary of the "reform" slogan, since even the government has sullied this ideal. Ma hit the nail on the head when he said that the DPP could not see the forest for the trees and that it had proved its own worst enemy in this election.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS