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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS