We bring to your attention another piece written by ICFET member. This time it is Stéphane Corcuff’s reflection on the election results. “The article questions the reasons behind the obvious diminished importance of the national identity debate in the 2012 elections, and shows that the vote for Ma Ying-jeou, in 2012 just as in 2008, is not equivalent to a vote for China, nor to a vote for unification.“, states Prof. Corcuff in an English abstract. Read the whole text in French here.

“Much has already been written about what role China and Chinese interests played in the election. Much of this was behind the scenes, but for Taiwanese voters it was nevertheless a real factor, inhibiting them from making a fully free choice. Whether by urging people to vote for the “right” candidate, through monetary influence or threats of “instability,” it constitutes an infringement of the liberties of Taiwanese. Next time around this “China fear factor” should play less of a role.” states Nat Bellochi in a recent op-ed for Taipei Times. Nat Bellochi is an ICFET member and former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. Read the whole piece here.

ICFET member Gerrit van der Wees, editor of Taiwan Communiqué, and Julian Baum, former Taiwan correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, authored an article for Tokyo-based magazine The Diplomat. Authors argue that despite significant achievements of the democratization process in Taiwan,  there are “built-in hurdles and impediments that tilt the playing field heavily in favor of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). These obstacles strongly work against a healthy public discourse and fair competition, and especially against the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and other smaller parties that would like to have their voices heard.“. Among the obstacles, the most significant are “the KMT’s large holdings of financial assets, corporations, and media outlets give it an abundance of resources, allowing it unrivaled capacity to spread its message and influence voters with advantages not tolerated by more mature democracies.“. In conclusion, Gerrit van der Wees and Julian Baum state that “The challenges for democracy everywhere are enormous. The Taiwanese know this better than anyone. They know, too, that their own experiment with democratic governance is only the beginning of a long and rewarding journey. That journey can only be successful, however, if the hurdles and impediments are cleared away.“. Read the whole text here.

Bruce Jacobs in op-ed for The Australian draws attention to the interferences of US and Australian governments prior to the elections. “Parts of the governments in the US and Australia unfortunately took sides in Taiwan’s election. The National Security Council in the US leaked a statement in September last year to the Financial Times stating the opposition Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate “left us with distinct doubts about whether she is both willing and able to continue the stability in cross-Strait relations”. The US also increased its ministerial visits to Taiwan and announced Taiwan was a candidate for visa-free status just before the election. Thus, despite statements from the State Department that the US took no sides in Taiwan’s democratic election and would work with whomever the Taiwanese people elected, many people in Taiwan on both sides of politics gained the distinct impression substantial portions of the US government were supporting Ma. Our own Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, likewise intervened the day before Taiwan’s election in an interview with CNN. Rudd said: “The key thing with this election is obviously if the Democratic Progressive Party wins, there’ll be an audible sucking in of breath in Beijing, and if Ma Ying-jeou from the Kuomintang, the KMT, wins, then it will be business as usual.” Rudd and the NSC improperly intervened in Taiwan’s electoral process. The cause for this is China. High-level decision-makers around the world worry that China will create problems in Taiwan. Thus, they often mistakenly identify tensions as a “Taiwan problem” when it is a China problem.“, Mr. Jacobs argues in the opinion piece titled “Taiwan needs protection from Chinese expansionism”. Read the whole text here.

Yoshiko Sakurai, President of Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, reflects on broad issue related to the outcome of the elections in Taiwan, including legacies of an authoritarian period, particularly KMT’s financial assets. “In a normal nation, the ruling party does not equal the state. However, as Hsiao [Hsiao Hsin-Huang, Director of the Institute of Sociology of Academia Sinica] claims, the Nationalist Party of Taiwan [KMT] effectively equals the state. The assets the Nationalist Party owns are kept in various categories, including real estate, stocks, and securities, according to Hsiao, who points out that the ruling party is believed to annually net up to US$100 million in stock transactions alone, viewed conservatively. The party utilizes its ample financial resources to run its chapters across Taiwan, channeling funds and jobs through them, according to Hsiao.”

Michael Danielsen, Chairman of Taiwan Corner, writes for Taipei Times about the possible development in cross-strait relations with an outlook to elections in 2016. “A reality check shows that the “1992 consensus” implies that Taiwan is part of the PRC, and that the common market will be considered under the “one country, two systems” framework by the international community. Policy statements lose any meaning if the “1992 consensus” is considered as an empty phrase in order to accommodate China. Consequently, the KMT will get full backing from China, the US and Europe, and the fear of a negative Chinese reaction to a DPP victory in 2016 will add pressure Taiwanese to make the “right” choice. The KMT’s massive campaign funds will again ensure an efficient election campaign. We will very likely see yet another “mostly free and partly unfair” election in Taiwan, as the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan labeled the Jan. 14 elections. If China’s economic success continues, the only hope to save the nation is strong and unwavering support for democratic consolidation and in elections free from external interference.“.

Edward McMillan-Scott, Vice-President of the European Parliament, welcomed the outcome of the elections but also expressed caution at the same time regarding developing closer ties with China. “While there is no doubt in my mind that president Ma is striving for better ties with mainland China in the best interests of Taiwan, I would advise caution. China has at no point appeared willing to negotiate on the Taiwan issue, and I believe that the reluctance of nearly half of the population to vote for president Ma is a reflection of that.” stated MEP McMillan-Scott for The Parliament.

Yuriko Koike, Japan’s former Minister of Defence and National Security Advisor, elaborates in the commentary for Singaporean daily The Strait Times on Chinese use of soft power in order to secure the primary goal, i.e. the Taiwan’s unification with China. Economic integration and Ma Ying-jeou’s re-election is therefore just a stepping stone from the Beijing’s perspective. “But economic integration is one thing, and political integration quite another. After experiencing the benefits of democracy and freedom of expression, Taiwanese are unlikely to want to settle for anything less than the open society that they have today. Indeed, with increased contact between Taiwan and the mainland, ordinary Chinese could begin to envy the modern democracy that the Taiwanese people have built – and spread the idea of an open society to the Chinese mainland. Ma’s role in his second term should be to serve as just such an evangelist for democracy in China.“, states Yuriko Koike.

Gerrit van der Wees, member of ICFET election observation mission, disputes in his editorial for Taipei Times that the outcome of elections was a vote for stability, calling it “vote out of a fear of instability”. He specifically elaborates on two issues that made the elections only partially free. “One was that the elections were only partly fair because of the authoritarian legacy and widespread vote-buying, combined with extensive use of administrative power and party assets. In the 2008 presidential campaign, then-presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) promised to divest the party of these assets, but this never happened. The second element of unfairness in the recent election was China’s influence and economic leverage. The Washington Post recently published an article about a Taiwanese businessman who had invested in China, influencing the elections through his wealth and control of news media. However, this was only one element in the pervasive influence China exerted in these elections: The “agricultural purchasing missions” to southern areas and the throttling back of tourist groups prior to the polls were other means of “subtle” influence. The bottom line is that the playing field was not level. In particular, the uneven access to resources is detrimental to the democracy we all want to see flourish in Taiwan.“.

The Washington Post article that Gerrit van der Wees refers to is an interview with Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明), chairman of Want Want Group, and can be found here.

Christian Science Monitor reported on the past and recent developments through which China exercises influence in Taiwan’s politics, including the fast pace of economic integration between the two countries. “Foreign election observers noted many of these developments and offered some stern warnings. Among them was a cautionary statement about China’s influence from the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan, a team of scholars, parliamentarians, and former government officials from North America, Europe, and Japan that was organized but not controlled by members of the opposition. “Cross-strait relations in the context of an economically and politically rising China weighs heavily on the election process in Taiwan,” the committee said in a preliminary report. “It puts tremendous pressures on Taiwan’s democracy and the freedom and fairness of the choices that its voters must make.”“, CSM quoted findings of ICFET observation mission. Read the whole article here.

ICFET International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) concluded with round table meeting on January 15, 2012. IEOM’s preliminary remarks are available here. The comprehensive report will be published in late January.

Photo gallery:

ANFREL Election Observers’ Statement on Taiwan’s 2012 Elections: Credible Elections but a Tilted Playing Field 

The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) conducted 10-days long observation mission in the areas of Taipei, Chiayi County, Chiayi City, and Yunlin County. Mission found the election process as largely encouraging, particularly praising peaceful and free nature of the campaign period, the competent management of the polling stations, and the high turnout on Election Day. Last but not least, ANFREL commended losing DPP party for conceding its election defeat in a timely manner consistent with a mature democracy.

However, several concerning areas were identified such as neutrality and impartiality, both real and perceived, of all related government agencies; persistent issue of vote buying especially in remote areas; biased nature of media reports and insufficient journalistic ethics; and disappointing number of local observers along with lack of codified policy of recognizing observers.

ANFREL Election Observers’ Statement is available for download below.

NOTE: This statement was prepared by the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL). Although ANFREL has no affiliation with ICFET, and their observation activity was conducted entirely separately from that of ICFET, we are providing their statement here on their behalf. As the only other statement by an independent observers that we are aware of, we feel it is an important additional reference. 

Files for download:

• ANFREL Statement on Taiwan’s 2012 Election (doc)
• ANFREL Statement on Taiwan’s 2012 Election (pdf)