Pan-blue`s evil affairs on July 30, 2004

Pan-blue claims of illegal votes unfounded

By Chuang Po-lin

Pan-blue lawyers said at a press conference last week that 99 percent of the voting booths set up for the presidential election illegally handled ballots, and that therefore a new election was necessary. President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu's lawyers rebutted this claim and stressed that such remarks were inappropriate before the court reaches its verdict. The Central Election Commission also pointed out that it was not appropriate for opposition lawyers to attempt to influence the judicial decision by swaying public opinion.

Since the May 10 completion of the nationwide recount, the pan-blue camp has realized that it is unlikely to overturn the election results with another tally. In the recount, some votes that had been considered invalid were re-assessed as valid, but some previously valid votes were also declared invalid. The total number of disputed ballots was still not enough to reverse Chen's victory margin of 29,518 votes. And so, the opposition lawyers are attempting to nullify the election by citing irregularities they claim to have found in the voter registration list. They claim that 954,570 voters are problematic.

Of the contested 954,570 voters, 479,821 obtained their ballots by making thumbprints with approval stamps by electoral staff. Under electoral regulations, that is considered legal. The pan-blue attorneys are finding problems where none exists in claiming these votes are problematic.

As for the remaining 474,749 ballots, 82,653 were obtained with the voter's signature, 20,252 with thumbprints without approval stamps, 129,472 with unrecognizable thumb prints, 24,271 with signatures not in conformity with voters' names, 45,036 with unrecognizable stamps, 2,578 with signatures by someone other than the voter, 41,035 with corrections made and 55,020 with temporary or reissued identification cards. Those votes obtained with signatures or with temporary or reissued IDs are legally allowed. The rest are only minor flaws in the electoral process. The pan-blue lawyers lack evidence to call them potentially invalid votes.

Are these attorneys suggesting that all these disputed votes should be calculated as votes for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong? If the votes are beyond recognition, are they suggesting that these tens of thousands of voters should go to court to explain who they actually voted for? As far as the thumbprints are concerned, identifying each of them is impossible. To be equitable, these votes can only be evenly distributed between Chen and Lien, and such distribution would not alter the election outcome.

To declare the election invalid, Lien's lawyers need to prove the election was illegal and that it violated the law to such a degree that it influenced the outcome of the election. Voting began at 8am and finished at 4pm and within several hours the counting was completed. Minor flaws were inevitable in such a swift process. But elections are handled in the same fashion worldwide. Unless evidence shows that electoral personnel engaged in illegal conduct such as vote-rigging, it is difficult to declare those electoral flaws illegal.

Lien's lawyers were unable to put forward evidence proving the election illegal or invalid when they filed the lawsuits. It was Chen who agreed to a recount because he wanted to prove his integrity. The motives behind the opposition lawyers' attempt to influence the court's decision by swaying public opinion are obvious and must be handled carefully.

Chuang Po-lin is a lawyer.

Translated by Jennie Shih

EVA Air subjected to boycott call

WHOSE WINGS?: Pan-green supporters are angry after the apparently pro-green air carrier EVA carried the slogan ``pride of the Chinese people'' in its Web advertising
By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER

Pan-green supporters yesterday called for a boycott against EVA Air on a Web site forum, accusing the corporation of pro-China sentiment, highlighting a reference to "the pride of the Chinese people" on the company's Web site.

A picture of the EVA Airway official Web site, featuring a close-up of a paragraph mentioning "the pride of the Chinese people," was posted on the online forum of the pro-green newspaper South News on Wednesday. The author, identified only as "midigear," added to the picture in bold red lettering, "Protest! Chinese? Sorry, the Taiwanese won't pay the bill."

Next Magazine reported last month that references to the "Wings of Taiwan" on the EVA Air Web site's corporate profile had been replaced with "Pride of the Chinese people."

However, the English-language version of the Web site remains unchanged, stating "From the wellspring of its Taiwanese heritage, [the Evergreen Group] built on the strengths of its culture and created EVA Air -- the Wings of Taiwan."

EVA Air public relations officer Liu Li-wen denied that any changes had been made to the company Web site, saying that it had always read "pride of the Chinese people."

"There is no particular hidden meaning to be found in "pride of the Chinese people. This is very common wording," Liu told the Taipei Times yesterday.

But she added that the "Wings of Taiwan" slogan was now outdated and had been replaced with "Just relax -- your home in the air."

Choosing green for the color of everything from the interior of the carriers to the uniforms worn by its employees, EVA Airways had previously been regarded as a "pro-green corporation" and as a pro-localization alternative to China Airlines.

In addition, Chang Jung-fa, chairman of the Evergreen Group which owns EVA Airways, had been a member of an advisory group instrumental to President Chen Shui-bian's victory in the 2000 election.

Media reports claimed that Chang had switched his political loyalties during the run-up to the March election. Chang wanted a candidate that would "build a peaceful, stable and harmonious cross-strait relationship in order to lead us to re-create Taiwan's economic miracle."

Chang expressed his dissatisfaction with the failure to lift bans on direct links with China.

Better Poll Questions Needed

Experts have long lamented the lack of accurate, impartial and useful polling data regarding the identity of the Taiwanese and the kind of cross-strait relationship they prefer. Even casual observers recognize that the limited polling information has been filtered through the ideological biases of the nation's myriad contending camps.

While many consumers of polling data are savvy enough to neutralize the ubiquitous spin, even many spin-free polling results lack explanatory power because poll questions have been poorly constructed. On the question of Taiwanese identity, pollsters typically ask, "Are you Taiwanese, Chinese or both?" And on the question of cross-strait ties, the pollsters ask, "Do you favor independence, unification, or the status quo."

Better questions would probably produce more complete and meaningful answers. On the question of identity, pollsters could ask a series of questions: Are you a hua ren? Are you a han zu? Are you a zhong guo ren? Are you a taiwan ren? Are you a yuan zhu min? If so from which tribe? Are you a hoklo or a hakka? Are you a wai sheng ren? If so, which sheng do you most identify with? Do your parents belong to more than one of these groups? If so, which ones?

On the question of cross-strait ties, pollsters could ask respondents to answer "yes," "no," or "maybe" to the following questions: Is Taiwan part of China? If not, should it be? Is Taiwan part of the Republic of China? If not, should it be? Is Taiwan part of the People's Republic of China? If not, should it be? Is Taiwan already independent? If not, should it be?

I suspect we would learn that most respondents view themselves as hua ren (culturally Chinese) or han zu (ethnic Chinese) but perhaps not as zhong guo ren (Chinese by nationality). We might also discover that most respondents see themselves as simultaneously Taiwan ren (Taiwanese) and also as yuan zhu min (indigenous folk), or hoklo or hakka or wai sheng ren, and that most respondents are descended from more than one of these last four "sub-ethnic" groups.

In addition, I suspect some respondents would say that Taiwan is part of China or the Republic of China, but virtually no one would say that Taiwan is or should be part of the People's Republic of China.

But what good is conjecture? To better understand the cultural, ethnic and political complexities of Taiwan, we need reliable, accurate, and illuminating data. We need better polling questions. How about this one: "Under what conditions would you ever freely consent to Taiwan's unification with the PRC?"

The answers to that one might raise an eyebrow or two in Washington and Beijing.

Jon Welch   Clifton, Virginia