[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6438-S6440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REPORT ON THE NATIONAL ELECTION IN TAIWAN
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in August I submitted a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government should
continue to support democracy and human rights in Taiwan following the
January 2012 Presidential and legislative elections. The International
Election Observers Mission has prepared a Report on the National
Election in Taiwan that includes some important details and findings. I
ask unanimous consent that the summary of that report be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Report on the National Election in Taiwan, January 14, 2012
To: International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan
From: The International Election Observers Mission (IEOM)
By: Woodrow W. Clark II MA, PhD, Lead Author and Senator
Frank Murkowski, Chair and all IEOM Members.
Overview
Taiwan is an island nation of 23.2 million people (November
2011) in an area of 35,980 sq. km. The nation has 18.1
million eligible voters, all citizens who are 20 or more
years of age. The winner of the January 14, 2012 Presidential
Election, with 51.6 per cent of the vote, was Mr. Ma Ying-
jeou, the incumbent and the nominee, Chinese Nationalist
Party (Kuomintang or KMT). Ms. Tsai Ing-wen of the opposition
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) followed with 45.6 per
cent and the nominee of the small People First Party (PFP),
Mr. James Soong received about 2.8 per cent of the vote
(Taiwan Election Results, January 2012).
At the same time, voters also elected the 113 members of
the national parliament, the Legislative Yuan. The KMT won 64
seats, while the DPP won 40 seats and the PFP, the Taiwan
Solidarity Union (TSU) and non-partisan independent
candidates each won three seats. Compared with the 2008
legislative election, the KMT won 17 fewer seats, the DPP
gained 13 additional seats, the PFP won two additional seats
and the TSU, with its three seats, returned to the
legislature after a four-year absence.
Political Background
Taiwan experienced a long political struggle during the
authoritarian era. Democracy in Taiwan only began after the
death of President Chiang Ching-kuo in January 1988 and the
accession of Lee Teng-hui to the presidency. The political
system is not divided between ``left'' and ``right,'' though
the DPP does place somewhat more emphasis on ``social
justice.'' Instead, ``the primary political cleavage between
the political parties has been and remains the issue of
national identity, often referred to as the `unification-
independence' issue'' (Taiwan Elections Handbook, 2012:
p.13), or between the ``pan-blue'' alliance (Kuomintang and
associated parties) and the ``pan-green'' alliance (DPP and
aligned parties).
Mr. Ma's percentage of the vote fell from the 58 per cent
he gained four years earlier and, as indicated earlier, the
new KMT majority in the legislature was much less than the
huge victory, which it won in 2008 (Cole, March 9, 2012).
The International Election Observer Mission (IEOM)
Eighteen (18) observers from seven countries were invited
by the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan
(ICFET) to form an International Election Observation Mission
(IEOM) for the January 2012 Presidential and Legislative
elections in Taiwan. See the list of members of the IEOM
below in Table 1.
The group consisted of observers from Australia, Canada,
Denmark, France, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the
United States, ranging in experiences from academia, elected
representatives, religious groups, businesses, and civil
society. As observers, the IEOM members tried to be strictly
neutral in all their activities, data gathering, and
conclusions.
Most members of the IEOM were in Taiwan from January 10-15,
2012. Members visited locations in Taipei, Kaohsiung, Tainan,
and Taichung. As a group, they met with campaign organizers,
staff, and candidates from the three political parties
running presidential tickets: the Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the
People First Party (PFP). Then, on the day before the
election (January 13, 2012) and during Election Day (January
14, 2012), the IEOM split into smaller groups of 2-4 members
who observed political rallies, street campaigns, and polling
station as well as the Central Election Commission counting
center on Election Day.
This report consists of direct IEOM observations by its
members as well as other sources, including the Taiwan and
international press as well as post-election news sources in
Chinese and English. Other observer groups were also present
in Taiwan.
One other neutral observation group, the Asian Network for
Free Elections Foundation (ANFREL), headquartered in Bangkok,
Thailand, deserves special mention. ANFREL produced an
Observers Report (entitled ``Credible Elections but a Tilted
Playing Field'') after the Election that corresponds with
many IEOM observations as well as our Press Release and this
Report. The ANFREL Report (2012) will be cited herein.
Full Report
The full report of the IEOM was published in Taiwan on June 11th
2012, and is available on the website of the International Committee
for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET) at: http://
www.taiwanelections.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Taiwan-2012-
Elections-IEOM-Final-Report.pdf
[[Page S6439]]
Key Sections: Nation Elections and Set of Conditions
The National Election: democracy and identity politics
Over the past twenty years, many surveys have been
conducted on the identity of Taiwan's citizens. Overall, the
numbers who consider themselves solely Taiwanese have
increased from 17.3 per cent in 1992 to 54.2 per cent in June
2011. At the same time, the numbers who consider themselves
solely Chinese have declined from 25.5 per cent in 1992 to
only 4.1 per cent in June 2011. This development has
continued since Ma become president in 2008. Furthermore, a
recent survey shows that 74 per cent prefer independence, if
given a free choice, and more than 81.7 per cent refused to
accept the ``One country, Two systems'' proposal from China
(Danielsen, 2012, pp. 141-142).
Taiwan has much more income equality than most countries
today, and according to some commentators is one of the most
``equal societies'' in East Asia. However, inequality has
been rising in recent years, so that about 20 per cent of the
Taiwan population earns over six times that of the bottom 20
per cent of the population. While the unemployment level
remains low by international comparison, it too has been
rising, affecting mainly lower and working-class people.
The national elections on January 14, 2012 were the fifth
direct presidential and the seventh direct parliamentary
election. Many have called Taiwan's elections ``a beacon of
democratic practices in Asia'' (Baum and van der Wees, 2012).
Thus, many other nations in Asia and around the world were
watching the Taiwan election process and its outcome very
carefully. Taiwan has indeed become more ``democratic'' over
the last twenty-four years, due to its allowing the existence
and activities of opposition political parties and the rapid
growth of human rights on the island. Nonetheless, these
national elections were not perfect. This is why the IEOM, in
its post-election Press Release, labeled them ``mostly free
but partly unfair'' (Taiwan Elections, 2012).
Taiwan is surely not alone among countries across the globe
in which movements dealing with social and environmental
concerns have been followed up by developments focusing on
the establishing and functioning of a genuinely democratic
system. ``People power movements'' have also occurred in
Eastern Europe and Latin America, and most recently in the
Middle East and Northern Africa. . . .
Taiwan is also not alone among nations concerned with
democracy today. Many western nations face similar problems.
Thus, David Kilgour, a member of the IEOM, spoke about
election issues in Ontario, Canada in 2005 to the House of
Commons Study Group. He noted then that Canada had some
similar issues with vote-getting (that is, the process
whereby candidates seek votes by offering various forms of
financial gains). . . . .
Hence the concern for free and open democratic elections is
not restricted to nations, which have recently become
democratic (Economist, 2012, pp. 47-48). They are also
prominent in western developed democratic nations in the
West, like the USA, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, and the UK.
Conditions for Free Elections
In the following section, we follow the universal
conditions for democratic elections, as set forth by Wolf
(1984), which can be applied to evaluate the national
elections in Taiwan in January 2012. These conditions are
based upon election observations in Nicaragua during which
Wolf identified nine ``Conditions'' that can be applied
anywhere in the world (ibid., Preface). Wolf's nine
Conditions are:
1) Honest watching of each polling station
2) Total secrecy in casting the vote
3) Voting: Dates, Residency, Inspection, and Counting
4) Absence of a climate of coercion and fear
5) Pre-election freedom of party organization and activity
6) Institutional freedom of intermediate organizations
7) Freedom of speech, campaigning, and assembly
8) Freedom of access to the media
9) Media financing of cable, TV, social and electronic,
journals, newspapers, and others
The IEOM proposes two additional Conditions both for Taiwan
and for other nations:
No. 10: Elections not determined or influenced by
international pressure or informal relationships.
No. 11: All Candidates should have equal access to funding
for elections.
Overall, the IEOM considers the 2012 Taiwan National
Election to have been acceptable for Conditions 1, 2, 4, and
6. However, Conditions 3, 5, and 7 through 11 raise issues
that should be addressed and corrected in future elections to
improve the functioning of democracy in Taiwan.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The IEOM would like to thank the organizers of the visit,
the ICFET, for their invitation and organizing of the
delegation. The IEOM wants to encourage the ICFET to continue
in its efforts and to support election observation activities
in the future to strengthen Taiwan's democracy, so that it
can be shared with other countries in the region and around
the world. As the IEOM conducted its observations, the
members greatly appreciated the willingness of candidates,
party representatives, and government representatives to meet
with them. Every party organization and its representatives
demonstrated hospitality, and suffered the IEOM's questions
with grace and dignity.
Areas for Improvement
The IEOM and ANFREL (January 2012) delegations made
comments on the successes of the Taiwan national election,
which are summarized below. Both groups saw ``areas of
concern''. These comments are made to provide constructive
feedback on the process in the spirit of improving it, so as
to provide a vibrant democratic system worthy of Taiwan's
people. No matter what happens in the future, China will
continue to have an impact and influence in Taiwan, just as
its economic impact is being felt around the world. The
peaceful interactions between nations will result in building
relationships and producing changes for both nations. Ms.
Tsai indicated the need for the DPP to work with China during
the election campaign.
Several key institutions need to be strengthened. For
example, civil service and non-elected offices all need to be
further de-politicized. Improvements in the legitimacy of the
elections and reduction of the politicization of the police
and courts would increase trust in them by the people and
reduce criticism of them during campaigns. Attention should
be put to ensuring the neutrality and impartiality, both real
and perceived, of all related government agencies.
The IEOM affirms that Taiwan is already a democratic
nation. But as with other democracies, there are problems
that need to be addressed. These range from public reporting
and control of election expenditures to the use of media and
neutrality of the administration. The issues of the
neutrality of the administrative and judicial systems are
serious and need to be addressed through public oversight,
evaluation and control. Will the newly re-elected government
appoint and oversee ``objective'' and ``transparent''
government officials and judicial officers and move towards
much-needed judicial, administrative as well as legislative
reforms?
The world will continue to watch Taiwan as it ``performs''
and reveals in the next four years what those future steps
will be. Taiwan is a sign of hope to many and has been a
model of democratic transformation. It should continue to be
the ``showcase nation'' for democracy. To do that requires
ongoing review and oversight.
The IEOM has a number of specific recommendations:
A) Thoroughly and honestly resolve the longstanding problem
of KMT party assets, including their source, use and
investments that create a huge imbalance in financial
resources available to each party. This imbalance distorts
everything else in Taiwan's elections, including that which
is otherwise fair. These hidden assets also provide huge
hidden funds to use for election media and other public
relations activities. President Ma has stated he wants to
resolve the status of these funds, but has not done so as
yet. In his new term, the proof will be in his actions.
B) Strengthen enforcement and public promotion of campaign
spending laws, and close the many loopholes that candidates
and parties can use.
C) Make consequences real for candidates who buy votes,
such as disqualification from running in future elections.
For example, in 2008 the PFP Plains Aboriginal candidate Lin
Cheng-er was removed as a legislator after he was convicted
of vote-buying, yet he ran again as a PFP candidate in 2012
and won. We believe he should have been disqualified from
running.
D) Use party discipline to combat vote-buying. Parties can
mobilize members to assist with the oversight of compliance
with election laws and can establish committees to gather
evidence concerning election improprieties. However, it is
the individual candidates who will make the difference. In
short, it is the candidates, not the parties, who buy votes.
E) Change the household registration system to allow people
to vote where they actually work or study in Taiwan and thus
end the need to travel long distances in Taiwan to vote. This
is already practiced in many countries.
Table 1: Members of The International Election Observers Mission (IEOM)
United States--Frank Murkowski, Former Senator and Former
Governor of Alaska (USA); USA, Chair of IEOM Mission; Woodrow
Clark II, PhD. Contributor to Nobel Peace Prize-winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), USA and
Lead Author of Formal IEOM Report; Edward Friedman,
Professor, Political Science, University of Wisconsin,
Madison; John Tkacik, Senior Fellow and Director, Future Asia
Project, International Assessment and Strategy Center.
Canada--Bill Blaikie, Former M.P, Deputy Speaker of
Canadian House of Commons; Susan Henders, Director, York
Centre for Asian Research at York University; David Kilgour,
Former Secretary of State, Asia Pacific, and former Member of
Parliament; Peter Noteboom, Deputy Secretary of Canadian
Council of Churches, Commission on Justice and Peace; Ted
Siverns, Former Dean, Vancouver School of Theology; Michael
Stainton, President, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of
Canada; Research Associate at the York Centre for Asian
Research at York University; Lois Wilson, Former Canadian
Senator, leader on Committee on Human Rights in the Canadian
Senate, President of World Council of Churches, first female
Moderator of the United Church of Canada.
Europe (one member from France could not participate in the
Report)--Michael
[[Page S6440]]
Danielsen, Chairman, Taiwan Corner (Denmark); Bruno Kaufmann,
President, Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe and
Chairman of the Election Commission in Falun (Sweden); Gerrit
van der Wees, Editor, Taiwan Communique (The Netherlands).
Japan--Katsuhiko Eguchi, Member, House of Councilors, Diet;
Yoshinori Ohno, Member, House of Representatives, Diet;
Yoshiko Sakurai, President, Japan Institute for National
Fundamentals.
Australia--Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and
Studies, Monash University.
____________________