Taiwan Today

In order to find out some of the implications of these elections/or the ROC's political development, FCR interviewed three key government officials who were responsible for administering the elections on the national, provincial, and Taipei City levels, and two visiting observers from the United States.

Interview with Hsu Kuei-Iin, (許桂霖) Secretary­ General of the Central Election Commission and concurrently Director, Department of Civil Af­fairs, Ministry of the Interior.

BY BETTY WANG

FCR: When did the commission begin preparing for last December's elections, how many official personnel were assigned to the task of conducting them, and what was the approximate total budget?

Hsu: We began preparatory work such as revising relevant laws and regulations at the begin­ning of 1989. During the balloting, about 143,000 people were mobilized to work at polling places or ballot counting centers as administrators, inspec­tors, and related posts. If you include police forces and election officials from the Central Election Commission, the Taiwan Provincial Election Commission, and the Taipei and Kaohsiung City Election Commissions, the total number involved was approximately 170,000. The total budget was around US$40 million.

FCR: Did computerization of ballot tabula­tion help as much as the public expected? Will it be improved before the 1992 elections?

Hsu: Computers were used only at the ballot­ counting centers of cities, counties, and the Cen­tral Election Commission, but not at lower levels such as towns and rural townships. It was in the 300 towns and townships where the ballot­ counting process was delayed. But compared with the elections in 1986, when the tabulation wasn't completed until 4:00 a.m. the day after the election, the announcement of the 1989 election re­sults was fairly quick. We did consider installing computers in towns and townships, but it was too expensive. The cost would have been more than US$4 million. Besides, it was too late to train people how to use the machines.

Disturbances such as the one in Tainan County also affected the speed of counting ballots. At around 1:00 a.m. on December 3rd, people protesting the election results damaged the county ballot-counting center. Otherwise, the whole tabu­lation process would have been finished by 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. the morning after the polls closed.

FCR: In Tainan County there were violent clashes between police and supporters of a defeat­ed candidate whose claims of cheating were proven groundless by a recount. Are you worried that similar incidents may happen in the future?

Hsu: I regret the whole incident. Elections are a way to select capable people for public office. Losers should act in a statesman-like way and voters should behave in a democratic manner. They should not impede the election process. Oth­erwise, it will be a cause for worry in future elections and will discourage election officials and volunteer workers.

FCR: As an election official, what are your thoughts about the December elections?

Hsu: I hope that all the members of society feel positively toward the people involved with election affairs and do not look at us with biased attitudes. The election administrators included government officials, other observers, school teachers, and university students. We won't do anything unfair or unjust to any party. Besides, in accord with the Public Officials Election and Recall Law, any election official who uses official power to influence an election will receive a penal­ty that is one and a half times more severe than people not in official positions.

Interview with Wang Yueh-ching (王月鏡), Director of the Department of Civil Affairs, Taipei City Government, and concurrently Secretary-General of the Taipei City Election Commission.

BY BETTY WANG

FCR: How much did the government have to spend to conduct the December 1989 elections in Taipei, and what were the major problems facing the Taipei City Election Commission?

Wang: The total budget was US$3.2 million. One of the key problems was the difficulty of recruiting enough inspectors and administrators for the political rallies, polling stations, and ballot­-opening and counting centers.

About 500 of the inspectors, mostly those recommended by various parties and candidates, did not show up at the pre-election orientations because of personal conflicts, fear of possible vio­lence on election day, or other excuses. We therefore had to mobilize other people on short notice to handle the work.

The other big problem was compiling the roll of voters eligible to cast votes for the various spe­cial functional representatives in the Legislative Yuan. It is a rather complicated system of representation, since some candidates represent laborers, others represent teachers, and so on.

FCR: How much was each inspector or ad­ministrator paid per day?

Wang: Chief inspectors and administrators re­ceived US$60 per day, and ordinary inspectors and administrators received US$48.

FCR: In what area do you think the Taipei City Election Commission best served the candi­dates and the 1.75 million voters during the elections?

Wang: I'm quite proud of our computerized ballot tabulation center. My experience in elector­ al affairs began in 1980. Because I was young and energetic, the mayor asked me to be responsible for Taipei electoral affairs. The first thing that came to mind was to computerize the election procedures. But when I brought up the matter, everyone at the Department of Civil Affairs, including the district heads, was against using computers. They insisted that the abacus was faster than the machine. By 1986 they began to realize the advantages of the new technology be­ cause it does save us a lot of time and energy.

FCR: Were there any administrative short­ comings during the elections in Taipei?

Wang: Mayor Wu Poh-hsiung gave us 99 points out of 100 for our administration of the election in the Taipei area. The loss of that one point was because three ballot-opening and count­ing centers [out of 1,125] were unable to finish tabulating the ballots on time—they were an hour and a half late.

Interview with Chang Li-tang, Secrtary-General of the Taiwan Provinical Election Commission, and concurrently Commission-Provinical Government.

BY CHEN YI-MING

FCR: In what respects were the December elections especially significant?

Chang: Several new records were set. First, the largest number of voters participated in this local election-almost 10 million voted for Taiwan Provincial Assemblymen, county magis­trates, and mayors. Second, the largest number of candidates vied for local office: a total of 461 ran for 178 open seats. Third, a record number of poll­ing stations were set up: 8,855 in 331 rural townships, towns, and cities, and another 6,331 in villages and boroughs. Fourth, a record number of staff were appointed to help administer the poll­ing stations, including more than 30,000 security guards and 130,000 administrative personnel.

FCR: What arrangements helped guarantee a fair and secret balloting process?

Chang: We enforced strict regulations for printing, counting, packing, distributing, and safe­-guarding the ballots for the 21 counties and cities. This ensured that unlawful practices such as stuff­ing ballot boxes would not happen.

FCR: What measures were taken to ensure the safety of candidates, campaign workers, and voters during the election?

Chang: Because of the recent deterioration of public order, candidates felt insecure when partici­pating in electoral campaigns. Administrative staff members for the election also worried about their safety. The Provincial Election Commission, which acts in line with the policy and regulations of the central government, invited consultations on this matter from various sources, including police officials, the ROC Investigation Bureau, and the Taiwan Garrison Command. This was done to bring about a secure environment for the elections. The result is that the election process in Taiwan moved from a potentially dangerous situation to one that was safe and sound.

FCR: What does the new competitive envi­ronment between parties mean for future elections?

Chang: It is a promising start. The involve­ment of political parties in the elections means the phenomena of close-in conflict and offensive­-defensive action between groups has a legal frame­ work. Among the 39 parties registered with the Ministry of the Interior, 16 nominated candidates to run in the elections. Moreover, there were more attempts to appeal to the electorate through political rallies. The totals are impressive: the KMT held 170; the DPP, 396; the China Democratic Socialist Party, 39; the Labor Party, 12; and the Workers' Party held five. That means well over 600 rallies.

FCR: What about the claims by some people about unfair vote tabulation?

Chang: The rumor that claimed the ruling party cheated in the elections has been disproved by the facts: in addition to the 130,000 administrative people who worked in the polling places, numerous poll watchers were assigned at each polling place by the candidates of the various parties, mostly from the DPP.

Several people who failed to win in the elec­tion protested that the ruling party "cheated." Among these was Lee Tsung-fan, the DPP candidate for Tainan county magistrate. He demanded a vote recount. The district attorney of Tainan, following the guidelines of the Election and Recall Law, recounted 270,000 votes. The result was that only three ballots were tabulated incorrectly. This case further demonstrates the fairness both of the elections and of the admin­istrative workers at the polling places.

FCR: There are still widespread complaints about vote-buying. What can be done about this?

Chang: Although the government has announced severe penalties for such practices and has encouraged everyone to turn in people who are involved in either violence or vote-buying, the results so far are unsatisfactory. While there is less violence than before, complaints about vote­ buying are still common. It will take time to solve this problem, and the process will involve discus­sion among all segments of society.

FCR: What did foreign observers think about the December elections?

Chang: There were several groups of foreign observers who came to observe the elections, es­pecially from the United States. Their comments were generally very favorable. For example, the observers from Columbia University, after visiting the Taiwan Provincial Election Commission and conducting their own in-depth observations, all agreed that the elections here were quite fair.

Interview with Mr. Robert Sutter, Chief of the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Congressional Research Service. (Mr. Sutter and Dr. June Teufel Dryer, interviewed below, were members of the U.S. Scholar Election Observation Group which visited the ROC November 25-December 4.)

BY CHEN WEN-TSUNG

FCR: What was the main purpose of your group's visit to Taiwan this time?

Sutter: Our purpose was to observe the elec­tion campaigns during the final week. There are five members in our group. Four went to Kao-hsiung; I and a person from a different group went to Taichung. We observed the candidates campaigning and had briefings with people from both the Nationalist Party and the opposition, including the DPP.

I thought it was a very informative process. Of course you can't see everything in one week. We talked to various types of people and got a whole range of perspectives. We had a well­ balanced program and we got a really good sense of what was happening.

We also talked with other foreign observers here, including press people, so there was a sort of information network among various people to ex­ change views during the campaign and the election.

FCR: What particular aspects of this visit interested you most?

Sutter: I've been interested in a number of things. First of all, I have never been an observer of an election, and I wanted to see that. But my major interest is in U.S. policy and interests vis-à-vis Taiwan, and I wanted to see how the elections were affecting those interests.

U.S. interests fall in· three areas: one is the Congressional concern with encouraging political liberalization and democracy in Taiwan. The sec­ond is our trade and economic relations with Taiwan. And the third is the U.S. desire to main­tain a balance in the relations among Peking, Taipei, and the U.S., and find out how to preserve this balance. I wanted to see how the election would affect any of these three core American interests.

FCR: What impressed you during the campaign?

Sutter: We listened to the rally speeches and saw that some people were very critical about a whole range of issues, including very sensitive ones as far as the laws here are concerned. The National Security Law and other laws are very specific about issues like Taiwan independence and so forth, but despite that, the independence issue was discussed by a number of people. Some said "We shouldn't do that sort of thing because it is against the rules." But others would say "We were restricted from TV coverage and from other ways of getting our message across, and therefore we resort to these alternative approaches to get the word through to the electorate." Anyway, the people were free to choose, and the voting was secret, so I don't think it made much difference in the outcome of the elections.

FCR: Based on your experience, do you think election campaigns in Taiwan are much different from those in the United States?

Sutter: The structure and system here are somewhat different, but every system is different in one degree or another. The important thing is whether or not the candidates are able to get their messages across to the voters. I think the DPP had one difficulty and that is that their candidates didn't get much television time. But they still managed to reach the electorate. They used other means, videos and so forth, to get around regula­tions of that sort. People in Taiwan are very in­genious and they found new ways to communicate their messages.

You have a lot of rules for your campaigns. But I think the basic goal of having a fair election was understood by both sides. Some inevitable complaints aside, I think the process worked rea­sonably well. And presumably there will be modi­fications so that it will work even better in the future.

FCR: What are your own assessments about the election process and results?

Sutter: The election process is definitely a step forward and politically liberalizing. The proc­ess worked well. The result suggests that reforms and changes are moving ahead in Taiwan. The KMT obviously is still dominant, but I think now the DPP has done reasonably well too.

DPP people told us frankly that there are differences among themselves and that some of them are very much attached to the "New Tide Movement" [which advocates Taiwan indepen­dence] and the "New Nation" idea. Others think it isn't the appropriate way for the party to go, and they should focus more on pragmatic issues, or what we call bread-and-butter issues like environ­ mental protection, education, and law and order.

Despite these differences and the party's loose structure—the DPP is not a tightly orga­nized party—they were able to do quite well. Now we have to see whether they can produce more tangible results in the counties and cities that they have "conquered." The people will begin to judge them if the traffic gets worse, the pollution gets worse, or things of that sort. And if people don't get a paycheck sometimes, they are going to turn to them for action. So it's important to note that when the oppositionists achieve greater visibility and power, they also shoulder greater responsibility. I know a few of the DPP candidates. They strike me as very responsible and diligent indi­viduals who will work hard for their county or their city.

FCR: You have a special interest in Asian strategic affairs. Do you think the political evo­lution here will have any impact on the strategic position of the ROC and its status in international politics?

Sutter: First of all, I would make a point, at least from an American perspective. As you move toward greater political liberalization and democracy, the attractiveness of Taiwan is much greater in the eyes of the outside world. It im­proves your position. For example, the election here stands in stark contrast to the crackdown which occurred [last June] on the mainland. So it makes people in the United States feel more favorable toward Taiwan. That also raises your in­ternational profile and increases the support you have overseas on the part of intellectuals, media, politicians, and other people in different countries. I think that is to your benefit.

But it does raise a possible complication, in the sense that it gets to the issue of Taiwan inde­pendence and how that's handled. If you reach a situation where it looks as if your government is somehow going to declare independence—that is, if you really separate from the mainland in a de jure way and actually challenge the one-China principle—then I think Peking's reaction will be very unpredictable and probably hostile in some way. The U.S. and other governments that have to deal with Peking are put in a difficult position if a choice has to made.

Interview with Dr. June Teufel Dryer, Director of East Asian Programs and Professor of Politics at the University of Miami, Florida.

BY CHEN YI-MING

FCR: What made you decide to come to Taiwan to observe the December 1989 elections?

Dryer: Because the election is a very impor­tant milestone on the road to democracy. Of course, so was the 1986 election, which I also was privileged to watch.

FCR: How will you report your observations to the American public?

Dryer: I wrote an article called "Taiwan in 1989" to be published in the scholarly journal Asian Survey in January 1989, and I am adding a paragraph to it about the elections. Besides, I will write a piece for the Miami Herald. I have also been asked to write a story about the election for a general-interest magazine in California called Arete. So Americans will hear from me about your elections from three different sources.

FCR: Before you came here, what did you expect to see and to what degree were your expectations met?

Dryer: Every time I come to Taiwan, there are changes. I expected a noisy but free and fair election, and that in fact is what has happened. I spent two days in Kaohsiung last week and it was indeed noisy. Really there is not much difference between what I expected and what I observed here. Interestingly, when I came last time, no one objected if I wanted to see DPP candidates, but I had to make my own arrangements. This time, the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the arrangements for me. I noticed last time that when DPP candidates ran, there was no party affiliation noted in the blank spaces after their names. This time they were able to put" DPP" in that space.

FCR: Can you add some further comments about your observations during the elections?

Dryer: Many people appeared quite confident that they could say anything they wanted to. I heard one candidate in Kaohsiung say "Kuomin­ tang, bull....!" Everyone laughed. Another candidate, a Kuomintang candidate, attacked the Kuo­mintang! Obviously he was not afraid, and so it sounds as if the candidates either are very coura­geous or they feel they have nothing to fear, and they expressed themselves very freely.

FCR: Did you have a full and fair opportunity to observe the elections?

Dryer: I think so. We met with both DPP candidates and Kuomintang candidates. We also went to five rallies, two in Kaohsiung and three in Taipei. Then yesterday morning, December 2nd, we visited various polling places. In the afternoon we rented a car and with the help of a list of polling place addresses we went to all of them. We talked to people as they came out of the polling places. We asked them "Have you been harassed? Is everything peaceful? Did anyone try to influence your vote?" Everyone agreed "No problem." We also asked the policeman at the polls "How has your day been?" He said "Boring!" "No prob­lems!"

FCR: What kind of critical assessments did you hear?

Dryer: Some people talked about "ghost votes," but I haven't seen any real evidence of this. Occasionally, the government would send an election notice to someone who no longer lives at the address used, but of course when you vote, you also have to present your voter registration card, so I don't see how this could enable a person to vote two or three times. Of course, we also heard stories about vote-buying, but I don't believe if you pay people NT$500 to vote for some­ one that they will necessarily vote your way.

FCR: Do you think this election was fair?

Dryer: Yes, I do. I saw hundreds of people cast ballots. I saw no problems. In terms of what I heard, both sides did a little vote-buying, but not very much.

There are steps that must be taken in the future, I think, before you can have a real democracy. The parliamentary representatives who were elected in 1947 must retire, and eventually it would be best to move toward having no appointive seats and having all posts open to election. Still, something to think about is that many of the DPP leaders are not able to run for office because they have a criminal record stemming from the Kaohsiung Incident or something like that. Your government might consider offering amnesty to these people and restoring their political rights. It has been more than 10 years since that incident. I think it is time.

FCR: In your opinion, does the DPP qualify as a viable opposition party?

Dryer: Well, certainly there are many very smart, very attractive candidates in the DPP. The problem for the DPP at the moment is that there are internal struggles within the party. Before they can hope to be a ruling party, they must solve these factional disputes. The Deputy Secretary General of the DPP said, "It will take between seven and 12 years before we are ready to be a ruling party."

It might be a good idea for the DPP to be­come a more international-minded party. For example, they have stated that they think the mili­tary budget ought to be reduced. This is what we call in the United States a "mother and apple pie issue" because everyone is in favor of reducing the defense budget, but I have not yet heard of a realistic assessment by the DPP about how much Taiwan's defense ought to cost. In other words, what sort of threat is there? If they say there is no threat then I wouldn't believe them. They have to assess what kind of threat exists, and how many soldiers you need, how many sailors, how many people in the air force, what kind of airplanes, what kind of ships, what kind of tanks you need and how much these are going to cost. Then they can say, "all right, this is what we think the defense budget ought to be."

FCR: Do you have any comments on how the KMT has dealt with the opposition parties?

Dryer: I have heard from DPP people that they do not get treated very well. I have not seen this except for one incident where a reporter got slapped. So, I'm not able to assess the situation, but DPP people complain that their headquarters are harassed, their mail is not delivered, and they are not allowed to have a TV station. If these things are true, then I think it would be better if the DPP could have a TV station if it wants one. If they say things that are really harmful, they can be corrected or sued or something like that.

FCR: There are arguments here about reu­nification with the mainland and Taiwan inde­pendence. What is your opinion about this?

Dryer: Taiwan is independent. We have a saying in my country" A rose is a rose is a rose." A country is a people inhabiting a territory with a government administering that territory, issuing visas, granting passports, collecting taxes, and so forth. Now you have a country with a discrete territory, a nice island. The government administers this territory, collects taxes, issues visas, and grants passports. So Taiwan is a country, is a coun­try, is a country, just like a rose is a rose is a rose.

The real question is whether you issue a for­ mal declaration of independence or if you just keep quiet about it. Of course, in a certain sense, a formal declaration is useful, because it says to the world "We are us." But there are also some risks. Actually, I think that Communist China does not have the power to invade Taiwan. All they are trying to do is to scare you. An American analyst, Douglas Pike, talked about the small bristly dog syndrome when he was talking about Vietnam. A small bristly dog has no power, so it barks twice as aloud. Nevertheless, I think Communist China has the ability to cause a lot of trouble for Taiwan, so you must take a calculated risk. Do you want to declare independence and risk Communist China making a lot of trouble, or do you want to keep quiet and enjoy independence?

I think that as time goes on, Communist China will become increasingly unable to deal with Taiwan. In the mainland there are too many internal problems, including leadership disputes, and many people do not like their government. One does not have to go to Tienanmen Square to hear people grumble about their government. I go to the mainland every other year and find that people are constantly complaining about their government. If Communist China took-over Taiwan, they would have 20 more million people grumbling against them. But even without a take­ over attempt, they could cause Taiwan many prob­lems, so there is a risk factor. But as time goes on, the world will come to accept more and more that Taiwan is in substance an independent country, and you do not need to declare independence during these years. Perhaps 20 years from now it would be much easier.

FCR: How does the nation's political de­velopment help the ROC on the international and strategic level?

Dryer: I think that the outside world has to contrast favorably the way that Taiwan has re­sponded to the demands of the people to participate in government with what has happened on the mainland, where people tried to participate in their government and the government sent in tanks and killed them. I think this will enhance Taiwan's international strategic position. If citizens feel that they have a stake in government, that would mean that when their government is threatened they will fight much harder to preserve their government.

FCR: As an expert on mainland China, what can you say about the two areas based on your personal observations?

Dryer: I think that the situation in mainland China is becoming worse. The government had problems before the demonstrations at Tienanmen Square. They had problems of corruption and inflation, and they had human rights problems. This is what the people were demonstrating about. Of course, following the Tienanmen events, it has even worse human rights problems. They are cracking down on inflation and corrup­tion, but this is hurting the economy.

With regard to Taiwan, you have a growing economy and a stable population. You do have a labor shortage that causes problems of its own, but you have an increasing1y democratic government. Of course, no government is perfect, but you can always continue to improve your government. Basically, things here are going in the right direction, whereas in the mainland, by contrast, things are going in the wrong direction.