English Open Forum |
March 24 International Press Conference (Unofficial) Rebuttals on Accusations Made by James Soong and Lien Chan
Q: Why was there such a high number of invalid ballots?
A: Much like unhappy American voters who supported Ralph Naders casting their invalid ballots, in this year’s presidential election Taiwan has a coalition of dissatisfied voters that actively called upon voters to cast their invalid votes.
Additionally, due to the change of rules by the Central Election Commission (CEC), Taiwan imposed stricter rules to determine what valid ballots are. Only ballots with chops inside the box above the candidate’s photos are considered valid. Due to insufficient voter education, rural areas tend to have higher rate of invalid ballots than urban area, as is witnessed in statistics.
Q: Was there an election fraud?
A: In the past, KMT, Taiwan’s ruling party for over half a century, was actively involved in many election frauds. Last time when Taiwan had a proven case of election fraud was in 1992. Most elections have been relatively clean ever since. Due to such unpleasant experiences, Taiwanese are very knowledgeable on how to prevent fraudulence. CEC now asks each candidate to have at least 1 representative on site, along with the general public, when the CEC staff in a voting booth open the ballot box and count the ballots. As CEC is now a non-partisan government agency, the whole election process, ranging from ballot printing to delivery to counting, is now completely transparent and subject to public scrutiny. It is very unlikely that any political party can conduct fraudulence without being caught these days. This is not to say that vote buying is extinct in Taiwan, however. In fact, rumors on vote buying abound in this election. But as KMT remains the richest party in the world, most cases point to the pan-Blue camp.
Q: Does the ruling party fabricate the assassination attempt on Chen Shui-bian?
In a dictatorship, it is possible to coerce those who involved in a scheme of such design to fabricate the story. If the assassination were conspired, that means hundreds of people, including those who are within the security apparatus (usually more pro-pan-Blue), have to be bought and willing to collaborate and come up with a “perfect crime.” Taiwan is now a democracy and people can speak freely of their mind. If it is indeed a conspiracy, people will sooner or later leak out the true story. Let’s face it. In a democracy with working legal system, the pan-Blue camp has to produce evidence to substantiate their allegations. Otherwise, it’s just spreading rumors.
Q: Did the “national security mechanism” enacted after the assassination attempt prohibit military personnel and policemen from voting?
A: The Ministry of National Defense has indicated that at least 1/9 of all its personnel have to remain on active duty under any circumstances. In this year’s election, the number of people who stayed in their camps and could not vote was not substantially higher than any previous presidential elections. James Soong has indicated that if the ballot recount is not up to his satisfaction, he will then demand all those military people and police officers who didn’t vote be allowed to cast their votes now. Such demand is not only unheard of in any countries but a total disregard of the spirit and essence of democracy.
Q: Did the ruling party gain an unfair advantage by holding the referendum and presidential election at the same time?
A: The ruling party should take responsibility of holding the referendum. But most voters, especially those in the rural area, didn’t know much of the intricacies involved in the 2 referendum issues. Subsequently, supporting issues of the referendum can’t be directly translated into supporting Chen Shui-bian, though those who voted for Chen did seem to support the referendum. It is very unfortunate that the pan-Blue camp boycotted the referendum so successfully that the number of voters of the referendum didn’t even cross the threshold required in the law.
Q: Why is a ballot recount not implemented immediately?
A: In Taiwan, unless there is substantial evidence pinpointing fraud of certain voting booth(s), a recount cannot be enforced by the judicial system. Additionally, current legislation does not obligate a total recount if a candidate wins by certain narrow margin, such as 1%.
Subsequently, DPP has shown great sincerity to resolve the dispute by agreeing to implement an executive recount, which requires revision to the legal code. Politicians from the pan-Blue camp, however, demand the president promulgate an emergency decree so that the recount can be done immediately. Lien Chan even gave the president a 48-hour ultimatum to respond, as if Taiwan is now facing an imminent grave danger threatening this country. While he told the foreign press that the crowd gathering in front of the presidential palace is out of his control, his party is busing in thousands of people each day. Such a populist approach to resolve the dispute is far from exemplary.
As a fledging democracy, Taiwan’s unbearable pathos from the ghost of the past KMT tyrannical regime still lingers. If the “pure Chinese” on this island do not cherish our hard-earned democracy, maybe they simply don’t deserve it.
台灣獨立建國聯盟網站／WUFI Web-site
WUFI Open-Forum is open to anyone who wishes to express his/her viewpoints,
Holmes Liao, Ph.D.／Member of TAUP 2004/03/26
World United Formosans for Independence
comments, or suggestions; howver, personal matters, persoanl attacks and
commercial ads will not be posted. Please send your emails to:
wufidata@wufi.org.tw