Taiwan News has a fantastic piece on the Referendum vote, in which 18 county governments run by the KMT have determined to defy the law and separate the legislative vote and the referendum vote.....below they point out that the KMT plans to scatter 50,000 "election monitors" around the voting booths to intimidate voters, and learn who is pro-DPP by seeing whether they vote on the referendum issue (most people who bother to vote will vote positively)...+++++++++++++++
EDITORIAL
Taiwan News
Stop subversion of secret ballot
The announced intention by the opposition Kuomintang and its 18 city and county mayors to implement a so-called "two-stage" balloting system for the January 12 Legislative Yuan and referendum election despite last Friday's decision by the Central Election Commission for a "single-stage" method may present Taiwan's democracy with a grave challenge.
Under the Central Election Law, the CEC is responsible for deciding policy on election processes and other related matters and the city and county election commissions, typically headed by the mayors or commissioners of such districts, are responsible for implementation.
While the actual layout of voting booths is the responsibility of local election officials, any arrangements cannot violate the process and procedures for voting determined by the CEC.
By a nine to four vote, the CEC resolved Friday to adopt a "single-step" voting format for the January 12 Legislative Yuan and the concurrent holding of two referendums.
Under the system, voters will collect four ballots for constituency and party proportional legislative ballots and two referendums, respectively a
DPP-promoted referendum on the repossession of KMT "ill-gotten" party assets and a KMT-sponsored "anti-corruption" initiative, and cast the ballots into four separate boxes.
However, the KMT has demanded a "two-step" format in which citizens will collect and cast referendum ballots separately after completing voting in the Legislative poll.
This system would be similar to that used in the March 20, 2004 polls in which two "peace referendums" initiated by President Chen Shui-bian were held in tandem with the presidential poll and were invalidated as neither received the necessary 50 percent turnout due to a boycott by the KMT and other pan-blue parties.
It should first be noted that single ballots or collection or single-step use of voting machines is the norm in most democracies and that the principle of the secret ballot, which is enshrined in Article 129 of our own Constitution, is consistently given far higher priority than the question of whether arrangements are made for citizens who refuse to vote.
A case in point is Australia, which requires that all citizens vote as a legal obligation of citizenship and imposes significant fines onrecalcitrants.
The government and the Democratic Progressive Party favor the "single-step" pattern to simplify the voting process for efficiency and to expedite easy, rapid and convenient participation by citizens in voting for both the legislative polls and the referendums.
Another clear intent is to reduce the effectiveness of vote buying or any forms of subsequent intimidation or punishment of voters and block "contract" vote buying by making it more difficult to monitor for whom voters cast their ballots.
Such reasons may not be entirely "disinterested" but the motivations to boost participation and protect universal, equal and secret voting are at least within the bounds of democratic ethics.
Big Blue is watching
On the contrary, the 2-stage process supported by the KMT camp would expose voters who wished to vote in referendums to public view, especially if the polling booths for the referendums were physically separated from the balloting for the legislative races or even put in different buildings.
Indeed, many voters who collected the referendum ballots on March 20, 2000 faced such obstacle courses or were even subject to heckling or even intimidation by pro-KMT voters or "monitors."
The KMT's clear short-term objective is to discourage voters from participating in the "party assets" referendum, even though polls show that an overwhelming majority of citizens, including "pan-blue" and nonpartisan voters, favor the return of its "ill-gotten assets" to the country.
But even more grave is the fact that the combination of "two-stage" voting and plans by the KMT to mobilize over 50,000 "election monitors," enough to assign three to each polling booth, will allow local KMT branches to collect detailed information on just whom in each voting precinct favors the DPP or KMT.
The "two-stage" format's structural exposure of the preferences of each and every voter to public view will undoubtedly undermine the fundamental democratic principle of the secrecy of voting and constitute a massive violation of the basic human and civic rights of all our citizens, no matter what their preferences.
Moreover, the fact that the coming presidential poll may well be the last opportunity for the KMT, at least in its current form, to "win back Taiwan" will leave open the possibility that citizens whose preferences have been so exposed will be vulnerable to all kinds of pressures and intimidation to either switch from "green" to "blue" or not vote at all on March 22.
Moreover, the "two-stage" system and its attendant monitoring will spur the use of "contract" vote buying by providing a simple and direct method for local party organizations to monitor "contract compliance" by observing whether the "bought" voters abide by the tacit referendum boycott.
Given the tight nature of the coming presidential race, the use of intimidation or vote-buying against "green" supporters, could well determine the result of the March 22 poll and allow the KMT to "win back" domination over Taiwan through the most undemocratic of methods.
If the KMT wins the upcoming legislative and presidential elections by trampling on the sacred democratic principle of the secrecy of the ballot box, it is quite possible that Taiwan will never again have free elections.
The KMT camp, led by the Harvard University law school doctorate and former justice minister Ma Ying-jeou, have adopted the attitude that the CEC or the DPP-led Executive Yuan cannot do anything to block their concerted effort to realize "one country, two systems" in our national elections.
We believe that there is absolutely no room for ambiguity on the part of the Taiwan government in defending our hard-won democracy with all the legal and political tools at its disposal against this open conspiracy to subvert the sacred democratic and human right of the secret ballot and thereby compromise our hard-won right of domestic and, quite possibly,national self-determination.
In addition, we urge all Taiwan citizens to consider whether a party that shows such disdain for our fundamental constitutional rights and the integrity of Taiwan's legal system merits an opportunity to impose its undemocratic rule on our 23 million people.
+++++++++++++++
A great editorial.....the DPP needs to scream about the election monitors. And scream and scream. And we need to get the international media INVOLVED.
[Taiwan] [KMT] [DPP] [Ma Ying-jeou]
12 comments:
This is disturbing in the extreme to read. I hope the DPP will mobilize 100,000 green volunteers to intimidate those 50,000 blues.
Ma, as an ex-justice minister, should be ashamed.
Last time around my wife was approached before voting by the taike standing outside the polling station, and instructed to vote for the KMT candidate. They do it every election, the fuckers. But it hasn't been so organized an election fraud since the bad old days.
Michael
That was a great editorial. The Taipei Times also had something similar.
Everybody is aware of the KMT's authoritarian past, but there is not enough critical analysis of its anti-democratic present.
Well, one of their female legislators did say it last time -2004-:
We cannot allow this to happen again.
This being their losing the elections.
How diolien/embarrassing it would be, that after all efforts set to discredit CBS and the conomy and Taiwan in general, to lose power to somthing as trivial as democracy... (being sarcastic here)
Ok so I've been here a few months now, and I'm happy as can be.
But one thing irritates me the politics and the way some ppl I meet think the DPP is useless and the KMT knew how to run things....
but but but? remember how the KMT holds taiwan at ransom till they get their own way? only a few months ago? stalled budget? nope that rings no bells with these ppl I met. ( or any of the obstructions the KMT threw down in front of the DPP)
anyway...times like these I am tempted to say something stupid and short sighted like... "well the people deserve the government they get"
I seriously hope that the Executive Yuan is considering some evasive maneuvers. I don't know what they can do, but there must be a way to enforce its ruling, even if it requires hiring personnel to make sure the voting process goes smoothly.
It is one thing for Chen to hold a rally without a permit. It is another to interfere with free voting. And their arguments for separating the referendum and the election just dont fly. The thing that has me the most depressed is that fewer Taiwanese seem to care about this sort of thing than should, and seem to be blind to the fact that the KMT will stop at nothing to ensure it gets its way.
Obstructing the referendum on the UN mebership is bad enough. It is simply criminal for them to obstruct a referendum on returning the assets that they stole.
Why doesn't the DPP just appoint its own "monitors" to watch the KMT people?
Those counties are run by KMT, so can't get in. Also, competitive thuggery is nearly as bad as KMT only thuggery.
I think the real problem with competitive thuggery is that it scares away the voters faster than KMT-only thuggery.
The fact that the KMT is sinking to such low tactics is appalling but the lack of reaction from the locals is probably worse, IMHO.
And, as Marc Anthony said, Ma should be ashamed. But I've been wondering for some time when it will occur to him to feel ashamed...
The DPP doesn't need to resort to thuggery, just let the KMT know they have their own people around if voters start getting threatened.
In any case, this is not going to change anything. The DPP referendum will either pass with a significant margin or it will fail from people ignoring it for their own reasons. A few voters might think twice about getting the ballots in some areas, but hardly enough to stop the turnout being high enough.
If the two referenda in 2004 got 45% turnout with two-stage voting, given how lame they were I'd be surprised if the DPP couldn't get 50%+ turnout this time, with at least a number of areas having one-stage voting and more relevant questions being put before them.
Also the referendum is, in many ways, only symbolic. If the KMT and PFP still control the legislative they can block any legislation that might hurt them. A successful referendum might "require" a law, but if parties can't agree on the specific content then who's going to force a solution? Equally, though I've heard some people say the March referendum's success would lead to policy changes in the US, I doubt that would happen if the KMT won. A third DPP president would do far more, in my opinion, to do that - the US already knows the Taiwanese people want to join the UN as Taiwan and a referendum wouldn't change that perception.
Both this and the March referendum are designed to encourage people to vote DPP prior to election day. When people get to the polling station they'll have already made up their minds who they're voting for.
This just proves, one more time, that the KMT and the CCP are really birds of the same flock.
"A third DPP president would do far more, in my opinion, to do that" [you mean a second DPP president, by the way, but I know your meaning ;)].
On this subject, I read yesterday in the Taipei Times that there has been a new poll taken, once again that shows Hsieh far behind Ma. I have forgotten which of the blue papers published it. It was not the China Post, and I can't seem to find the reference again that leads me in the right direction.
Once again, it would be nice to know more about these polls. To what extent is the green press conducting them? Or, if they are conducting them, are they just not publishing the results? I wouldn't mind hearing from anyone who has knowledge of this (since I clearly have none).
Post a Comment