Report on the National Election in Taiwan
January 14, 2012 · International Election Observers Mission (IEOM)
Overview
Taiwan is an island nation of 23.2 million people (November 2011) in an area of 35,980 square kilometers. The eligible voters in the national election were 18.1 million. Voters are defined as adults who are 20 years of age or older and registered in Taiwan to vote.
The winner of the January 14, 2012 Presidential Election was Mr. Ma Ying-jeou of the incumbent Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT) with 51.6% of the vote. Ms. Tsai Ing-wen of the challenging Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) followed with 45.6%, and the People’s First Party (PFP) candidate Mr. James Soong had about 2.8%.
The election to the 113 seats in the parliament, the Legislative Yuan, was held at the same day as the presidential election. The KMT won 64 seats, the DPP got 40 seats, with 3 seats each for the PFP and the TSU. The remaining 3 seats were won by smaller parties and independent candidates. The number of KMT seats was reduced by 17, while DPP and TSU increased 13 and 3 respectively.
Political background
Taiwan had experienced a long political struggle during the authoritarian era. Democracy in Taiwan really only “began in the 1980s with the rise of social movements, the formation of the first opposition party, and finally the lifting of martial law” (Taiwan Elections Handbook, 2011: p.13). The political system is not ideological with a “left” or “right” view of the nation or world. 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” (ibid., p.13), or “blue” (Kuomintang and associated parties) and “green” (DPP and aligned parties).
As one post-election observer noted, Mr. Ma’s percentage of the vote fell from 58% four years earlier. With his re-election, he will have to be more careful “on questions of sovereignty — such as a peace accord … in which Taiwan and China would pledge not to resolve their differences by force” (Economist, January 21, 2012, p.43). The KMT influence has dropped in recent years, despite what some journalists refer to as the debate between independence vs. unification with China as the historical “authoritarian legacy” in Taiwan. That legacy still exists today.
The International Election Observer Mission (IEOM)
Twenty-one observers from 8 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. The group consisted of observers from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States, ranging in experience from academia, elected representatives, religious groups, businesses, and civil society. As observers, the mission tried to be strictly neutral in all its activities, records, and conclusions.
Most members of the IEOM were in Taiwan from January 10–15, 2012. They visited locations in Taipei, Kaohsiung, Tainan, and Taichung. As a group they met with campaign organizers, staff, and candidates from the three main political parties: the DPP, KMT, and PFP. Then on pre-election day (January 13) and during Election Day (January 14), the group split into smaller groups of 2–4 members who observed political rallies, street campaigns, and polling stations as well as the Central Election Commission counting center on Election Day.
This report consists of the IEOM observations by its members as well as other sources, including the Taiwan and international press, mostly post-election. One unbiased observation group was the Asian Network for Free Elections Foundation (ANFREL), headquartered in Bangkok, Thailand. ANFREL produced an Observers Report (sub-titled “Credible Elections but a Tilted Playing Field”) that corresponds with and validates much of the IEOM observations.
The national election: democracy and identity politics
After Taiwan’s transition to democracy in the early 1990s, the number of people on the island who identified themselves as “Taiwanese” grew rapidly — from around 20% in 1992 to more than 70% at present. At the same time the percentage identifying as “Chinese” decreased from around 50% in 1992 to less than 5%. The remainder identify as both Taiwanese and Chinese (Source: Taiwan Communiqué no. 112 and TVBS opinion poll, Feb. 2011). A recent survey showed that 74% prefer independence if given a free choice, and more than 81.7% refuse to accept the “one country, two systems” proposal from China (IEOM member Danielsen, 2012).
The national elections on January 14, 2012 were the 5th direct presidential and the 7th direct parliamentary election, which made Taiwan “a beacon of democratic practices in Asia.” Taiwan has become more democratic over the last 25 years. Nonetheless, the 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).
Conditions for free elections
Many scholars have studied national democratic elections and created guidelines for others to follow. Wolf (1984), while at Harvard in the early 1980s, set forth universal conditions for democratic elections based on his experience as an election observer in Nicaragua. He identified nine “Conditions” that can be applied elsewhere, and which can be used to measure the national election in Taiwan in January 2012:
- Honest watching of each polling place
- Total secrecy in casting the vote
- Integrity of inspecting and counting of votes
- Absence of a climate of coercion and fear
- Pre-election freedom of party organization and activity
- Institutional freedom of intermediate organizations
- Freedom of speech, campaigning, and assembly
- Freedom of access to the media and voting residence
- Media freedom, including the existence of independent journals, papers, and electronic media
The IEOM proposes additional Tenth and Eleventh Conditions, not only for the case of Taiwan but also for other nations:
- #10: International or extra-national actors do not exercise undue influence over the electorate, whether through political influence, economic pressure, and/or trade relations.
- #11: All candidates have equal and common standards of access to funding.
Overall, the IEOM considers the 2012 Taiwan National Election to have been acceptable in Conditional areas #1, #2, #4, and #6. However, Conditional areas #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. The following discussions detail the issues of concern.
Condition #3: Integrity of inspecting and counting of votes
Political stakes. The KMT has many members who serve in various national and local government appointed positions. Their loyalty can be questioned and may be interested in seeing the KMT re-elected. This can imply that they “miss,” “overlook,” or simply forget issues and problems. The IEOM recommends that Taiwan embark on a path of de-politicization of its civil service and non-election public offices.
Observers. ANFREL and IEOM discovered a disappointing number of independent local observers at polling stations both during and after voting. Taiwan should work to instill a culture of election observation to increase the public’s feeling of ownership and the transparency of the elections. Observation, both domestic and international, should be encouraged and welcomed by the Central Election Commission (CEC) through a codified policy of encouraging, recognizing, and authorizing election observers for every election.
Condition #5: Pre-election freedom of party organization and activity
Party organization. Its long history as an authoritarian power has given the Kuomintang ample opportunity to build up local networks. At the local level this network is made up of block (“lin”) captains, who know every household in their block. Long before the elections, the captain visits every household and ensures that the people understood they needed to vote for the “right” candidate. The vote buying (noted below) generally also takes place in this context.
The DPP generally has to rely on organizing campaign rallies to get their views heard. These rallies are free and open, but permits must be obtained from the local authorities, and in some cases these authorities (more often than not KMT members) have turned down rally requests for more favorable locations, so the DPP had to make do with less favorable, out-of-the-way locations.
Vote buying. According to sources interviewed during the campaign, vote buying was made easier by the fact that the Legislative and Presidential elections were combined. One article in the Taiwan News (February 18, 2012) described how Taiwan prosecutors were investigating two KMT lawmakers for vote buying. Over 200 cases of vote buying were investigated before the election, with 376 people interrogated. The “going price” was NT30) per vote in “easy” areas, to NT100), or even as high as NT168) per vote in areas where there was a hard-fought campaign. The practice was more prevalent in rural and agricultural areas (particularly in the South).
ANFREL (2012) notes that vote buying is always a problem, but specific, concrete evidence is hard to come by. Reported vote buying often took the more indirect and sophisticated form of vote buying in-kind — trips or dinners used to curry favor with voters. It was a general consensus that vote buying is worse the more local the election. This has been a long-term problem in Taiwan and is one that the CEC, the judicial system, and some political party officials continue working to correct.
Condition #7: Freedom of speech, campaigning, and assembly
Vote betting. An unnamed source explained the mechanism of “vote betting,” a subject that came up in the IEOM meetings in Taichung. According to this source, the KMT makes extensive use of local networks to encourage betting on the outcome of the elections. Local underworld bosses open up “betting on the elections” and promise a handsome profit — for example, one can bet 4 to 1 that Mr. Ma will win. The person doing the betting puts in a sum (say 500 or 1,000 NT$) and is promised a fourfold return if Mr. Ma wins. That person then has a personal financial interest in Mr. Ma winning and will work on relatives and friends to vote for the KMT. The payout is heavily subsidized by the KMT through its local networks.
The IEOM found it vital to focus on the judiciary and the neutrality of the government administration. There appears to be a need for structural reforms to ensure impartiality of the legal system. The ANFREL and IEOM believe that Taiwan Civil Society has an opportunity to assume a larger role in the election process — strengthening and representing the public interest on issues like electoral reform and activities such as election observation.
Condition #8: Freedom of access to media and voting residence
Most of the mass media in Taiwan (TV, cable and satellite TV, and radio) were supportive of the KMT Party. Due to the authoritarian legacy, a large majority of the news media in Taiwan is still closely allied with the KMT. Among the written media, only the English-language Taipei Times and the Chinese-language Liberty Times and Apple Daily can be said not to be aligned with the KMT. Among the major TV stations, only Formosa TV (Channel 4) is not aligned with the KMT or the government.
The role of the media was an obvious example of not having a “level playing field,” since they almost uniformly favored the KMT. The media environment was open and free, but was often regrettably compromised and partisan. A stable, mature democratic Taiwan needs an independent media, without which its democracy will suffer and the political polarization evident in some areas will grow.
Students not being able to return to vote. Several newspapers reported that most universities had final exams up until the day before the elections (January 13), causing problems with students’ ability to vote. These students are generally still registered to vote in their home town or village, and many students from the South (which is primarily “green”) were not able to return home to vote. There appears to be a need for reform regarding household registration in Taiwan that can make it easier to register in the city where the citizen actually lives.
Condition #9: Media freedom and independent journals, papers, and electronic media
Financial resources. The financial control of the media is usually a result of a party having funds to pay for media time. The IEOM checked the reported financial numbers from the Ministry of the Interior: the official KMT assets are NT985 million). Even narrowing it down to the KMT’s stated liquid assets, the party had 5.6 times more money than the others. DPP’s finances are about NT10 million), with fixed assets in land and real estate accounting for about a third of this — much of it held as collateral or mortgaged for bank loans. The KMT’s assets are about 97 times those of the DPP.
When the IEOM went to the DPP, they agreed and verified that number. However, when the IEOM asked the KMT, the Associate Director said that he “did not know — you should ask the Administration Budget Office next door.” This was shocking to the IEOM members, that the second-highest-level member of the KMT Election Committee did not know the party’s assets and budget. To his credit, he offered to find out and get back to the IEOM with the numbers, yet he never did.
Campaigns by both parties were clearly very expensive, made evident by the number and size of signs, rallies, and mass media political ads. It seemed likely that campaign spending would exceed the campaign finance limits that exist but have not been effectively implemented or enforced.
Condition #10: International influences in political, economic, and trade relations
Chinese agricultural purchases. Over the past year, China sent a number of “agricultural purchasing missions” to the South, buying agricultural products in large quantities. Chinese interest groups spread the message that if Tsai won, these missions would stop, leading a number of traditionally DPP supporters in the South to either stay home or vote for the KMT.
Reduction of Chinese tourism. During the weeks before the election, the Chinese government significantly reduced the number of tourist groups allowed to go to Taiwan. Reportedly, this had a twofold purpose: to reduce exposure of the groups to the Taiwan elections as an example of democracy, and to signal to tour operators and hotels in Taiwan that if Tsai won, they could “turn off the tourist spigot.”
Chinese support for the KMT. Long before the elections, political leaders in China made it clear that they supported the KMT and President Ma in order to increase trade, tourism, and social ties between the two nations. Interference from the Chinese side took many forms, including at an unofficial level: discounted flights for Taiwanese living in China (commonly believed to be mostly KMT voters); businessmen returning from China warning that a Tsai victory would mean “instability”; and at least one reported case of a worker told to photograph his ballot with his cell phone and bring back proof he had voted for the “right candidate” in exchange for reimbursed travel and extra holiday.
Other nations. Japan and South Korea appeared neutral. ASEAN nations seemed cautious of the KMT, possibly due to that party’s close relationship with China. Australia was neutral, reportedly because of its dependence on Chinese purchases of coal, natural gas, and oil. The European Union and the United Nations remained neutral. The United States professed neutrality through a number of statements — yet a quick succession of high-level U.S. visits to Taipei, the December 21, 2011 announcement of Taiwan’s candidacy for the Visa Waiver Program, and statements by former officials led many observers to conclude the U.S. government preferred the re-election of the incumbent administration. The IEOM Chair, Senator Frank Murkowski, held a press conference refuting one former AIT Director’s pro-KMT comments as “careless” and “inexcusable.”
Condition #11: Equal and common standards of access to funding
Due to the legacy of the authoritarian past, there is a huge imbalance in party wealth and resources. There is very little concern expressed by the government in power about controlling campaign expenditures. This lack of concern reflects a huge imbalance of resources, which creates an atmosphere where the election rules are routinely disrespected, undermining the rule of law and progress toward democracy.
Because the KMT has massive real estate and financial holdings — the extent of which are unknown to outsiders — its ability to fund and influence voters is strong. According to news reports and “The Unfinished Democratization” by the Taiwan Brain Trust, the annual interest alone from these holdings amounts to approximately US$100 million. This is an important area for reform.
Conclusions and recommendations
The IEOM thanked the organizers of the visit, the ICFET, for their invitation, and encouraged the ICFET to continue supporting election observation activities to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy. As the IEOM conducted its observations, the members greatly appreciated the willingness of candidates, party representatives, and government representatives to meet with them.
Areas for improvement. Several key institutions need to be strengthened and improved. With greater institutional strength, the judicial system would be better able to respond to complaints and have greater legitimacy and the trust of the population as a whole. Attention can and should be put to ensuring the neutrality and impartiality — both real and perceived — of all related government agencies.
The IEOM strongly feels that Taiwan is well on its way to continuing as a democratic nation. There are many issues confronting the nation, ranging from public reporting of financial expenditures to the use of media that need to be regulated or held to enforceable legal standards. The issues of the administrative and judicial systems are serious and need oversight, evaluation, and control. The world will continue to watch Taiwan as it reveals, in the next four years, what those future steps will be. Taiwan has been, and should continue to be, a showcase nation for democracy — and doing so will demand repeated reviews, reports, and oversight. Every nation, including the Western democracies, needs to do the same.
Election results
| Party | Presidential candidate | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| KMT | Ma Ying-jeou (incumbent) / Wu Den-yih | 6,891,139 | 51.60% |
| DPP | Tsai Ing-wen / Su Jia-chyuan | 6,093,578 | 45.63% |
| PFP | James Soong Chu-yu / Lin Ruey-shiung | 369,588 | 2.77% |
| Total | 13,354,305 | 100% |
Members of the International Election Observers Mission (IEOM)
United States — Frank Murkowski (Former Senator and Former Governor of Alaska, Head of Mission); Woodrow Clark, PhD (Lead Author); Edward Friedman (Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison); John Tkacik (Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center); Ketty W. Chen (Visiting Research Fellow, National Taiwan University).
Canada — Bill Blaikie (Former M.P., Deputy Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons); Susan Henders (York University Centre for Asian Research); David Kilgour (Former Secretary of State, Asia Pacific, and former M.P.); Peter Noteboom (Canadian Council of Churches); Ted Siverns (Former Dean, Vancouver School of Theology); Michael Stainton (Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada); Lois Wilson (Former Canadian Senator; President of the World Council of Churches).
Europe — Stéphane Corcuff (University of Lyon, France); Christine de Saint Genois (International Network of Liberal Women, France); Michael Danielsen (Taiwan Corner, Denmark); Bruno Kaufmann (Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, Sweden); Gerrit van der Wees (Editor, Taiwan Communiqué, the Netherlands).
Japan — Katsuhiko Eguchi (Member, House of Councillors); Yoshinori Ohno (Member, House of Representatives); Yoshiko Sakurai (President, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals).
Australia — Bruce Jacobs (Professor of Political Science, Monash University).
Daniel Wolf, Esq. — a political scientist and attorney with more than three decades of international work on democratic elections — provided guidance, edits, and expert advice.