Taiwan’s system of government is a semi-presidential one. Of the 55 countries with a similar system, Romania, Namibia and Peru are the only ones that have combined their parliamentary and presidential elections. The other 52 countries, including France, hold the elections on separate dates. One has to wonder whether the minority of countries that combine their elections have reached this situation without having given the issue deep thought. In Taiwan’s case, the attempt to combine the elections is certain to encounter several problems that will have to be resolved.
First, the Republic of China Constitution includes the possibility of bringing down the Cabinet in a vote of no confidence. If that happens, the president could dissolve the legislature and call for new legislative elections. Once the legislature had been dissolved, the timing of plans to combine the presidential and legislative elections would fall to pieces. Why, then, should we combine these elections?
Furthermore, the Constitution stipulates that the newly elected legislature must convene on Feb 1. This means that the legislative elections must be held in January at the latest. It also means that the presidential election would have to be moved forward to January, and, consequently, that the president-elect would have to wait for four months before being sworn in.
Unless the incumbent president has been re-elected, the lame-duck period for outgoing presidents would be extended.
Another problem is that presidential elections are governed by the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選罷法), while legislative elections are governed by the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法), and these two laws differ in several places.
These include the rules on campaign advertising, fines on bringing mobile phones into polling stations, regulations -blocking someone who has entered a polling station without voting from re-entering to vote, and the period prior to an election during which opinion polls are prohibited.
These differences could result in confusion over how to apply the law, leaving voters and candidates at a loss as to what to do. In the past, the timing of mayoral and councilor elections for the special municipalities have been changed, but both these kinds of elections are governed by the same law.
Combining the elections would cause the presidential candidates to dominate proceedings, while legislative candidates could appear lackluster in comparison.
This would deprive voters of the opportunity to get to know their legislators because of the focus on the presidential candidates. However, we must not forget the important role given to legislators in our Constitution.
Finally, if the presidential election is moved forward, about 50,000 young people that would have been able to vote for the first time if the traditional election date was kept will be disenfranchised, deprived of their first opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
There is nothing to prevent the two elections being combined, but all complementary measures should first be dealt with. The Constitution should be amended to create a common date for the swearing in of the president and legislators and the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act and the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act should either be merged or revised so that regulations are consistent.
The Ministry of the Interior is offering only an administrative and political solution; the constitutional and legal problems remain. If the issue is to be decided by public opinion poll, it would be populism, pure and simple, to do so without first fully explaining the issues.
Hawang Shiow-duan is a professor at Soochow University’s Department of Political Science.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS