|
Democracy has no room for bullets
More than a week has passed since Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central
Committee member Sean Lien (連勝文) was shot and a bystander killed at an election
rally for KMT Sinbei City councilor candidate Chen Hung-yuan (陳鴻源). In spite of
the public’s desire to see the facts revealed as soon as possible, President Ma
Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has not produced a detailed report on
investigations into who planned the attack. The slow pace of the investigation
makes it impossible to dispel uncertainties and halt the spread of rumors.
It is widely believed that the shooting influenced the result of the next day’s
elections. If so, then Taiwan is well on the way to being run by gangsters. If,
having succeeded once in changing the course of an election, those with evil
intentions were encouraged to do more of the same, it would be a grave setback
for Taiwan’s democracy. Therefore, we urgently need to work out what changes
need to be made to the system to prevent this, to stop the spread of illegal
weapons and stem the influence of criminal gangs.
It could be that those in authority are so satisfied that the incident helped to
win the elections that they aren’t thinking very hard about how to prevent such
a thing happening again. Therefore, the government must be monitored closely and
pressed to quickly come up with effective measures in response.
Ma is head of state, but so far his response to this shocking crime has been
very disturbing. Even as the underworld rides roughshod over his authority as
leader, using violence to effect who gets what share of political power, Ma
seems quite unconcerned. In fact, he can hardly hide his glee about the
unexpected windfall the incident brought his party in terms of votes.
He found time to be a volunteer worker at the Presidential Office, taking
telephone enquiries from the public instead of focusing on how to stop Taiwan’s
democracy from rotting. One can only conclude that power and authority have gone
to his head.
Rather than ordering those attending the KMT’s weekly Zhongshan meeting not to
talk about the shooting, the president should be actively facing the wound this
unfortunate incident has inflicted on the country and its people. He should be
working with the departments responsible for investigating the motives of the
shooting suspect, Lin Cheng-wei (林正偉), and finding the masterminds behind the
attack. Ma should be urging the investigators to swiftly give the public an
account of what really happened.
Besides that, there is much more that needs to be done to avoid confrontation
between the governing and opposition camps over the issue and to preserve social
harmony. Ma should not need to be reminded about what he should be doing at this
time.
Even if Ma is unwilling to admit that the shooting had something to do with the
KMT’s winning three out of the five municipal mayorships, he should face up to
the fact that nearly every KMT election rally on the night of Nov. 26 sought to
connect the shooting with how people should vote the next day.
Emotive exhortations such as: “Don’t let Sean Lien’s blood flow in vain,” “Use
your vote to punish violence” and “Cast your vote for justice for Sean Lien”
were heard at rallies everywhere, even though the facts of the case were far
from clear.
While KMT candidates may have made personal gains from this kind of
manipulation, it could only further cloud the true circumstances of the incident
and broaden its consequences.
While the KMT gained something in the short term, it risks greater losses in the
long term if there is a backlash to this manipulation. Once the situation has
calmed down and as the facts of the case gradually become clear, voters will
look back at what happened and ask themselves what logical connection there
could really be between choosing competent mayors and letting somebody’s blood
flow “in vain.”
Since the other political parties were not behind the violence, why should they
be punished at the ballot box? Since those party are innocent, why should they
have been denied the right to compete fairly based on their ability to govern?
When people have had time to reflect on these questions, they will get the
feeling that they have been fooled and the effect of this backlash is hard to
predict.
Now both the pan-blue and pan-green camps have had the experience of benefiting
or losing in a vote following a shooting incident. On March 19, 2004, two
bullets were fired at a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) motorcade, injuring
then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and then-vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮).
Nov. 26, just one bullet flew, although it claimed two victims. The number of
bullets may be different, but the air of suspicion is the same. The two parties
should empathize with one another and work together rationally to ensure that
the fairness of elections is never again compromised by one-off incidents.
However, Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), speaking in the
legislature after the election, said there was no analogy between the
“two-bullet” and “one-bullet” incidents.
Jiang’s statement was inappropriate and likely to stoke animosity between
followers of the two camps. A bullet injures its target just the same no matter
which party the victim belongs to.
Lien has been cared for at National Taiwan University Hospital. When Chen and Lu
were hit, it was Chi Mei Medical Center that looked after them. What is the
difference? Jiang should have higher moral standards than this and now is the
time for people in Taiwan to start learning how to talk to each other in a
civilized way.
Ma must pay serious attention to the deterioration of law and order. As the head
of government, he cannot shirk this responsibility. It must also be asked
whether Taiwan’s election and recall laws make it too easy for criminals to play
dirty tricks. The governing and opposition parties should reach a consensus on
the need to thoroughly review these laws.
For instance, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act
(總統副總統選舉罷免法) stipulates that a presidential election must be suspended if one of
the presidential candidates dies, but the death of a vice presidential candidate
would not have the same effect.
The Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), as amended in 2007, also
only calls for an election to be halted if a candidate dies. In the 2004
shooting Chen and Lu were injured but not killed, so the election went ahead,
but supporters of their KMT-People First Party rivals, Lien’s father Lien Chan
(連戰) and James Soong (宋楚瑜), thought that the shooting altered the result of the
election the next day to favor of Chen and Lu.
Sean Lien was injured and a bystander killed, but neither of them was a
candidate, so the special municipalities elections were held as scheduled, but,
as former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) said, no one could honestly say that
the incident didn’t influence the vote.
That being the case, what can be done to stop those who seek to change the
course of history by means of criminal acts? When such unfortunate events
happen, how can politicians be prevented from using such incidents to drum up
support at the ballot box? Is it right that elections should be suspended only
when someone dies? Should we also consider suspending elections when the victim
of an attack is someone other than a candidate?
On the other hand, any change may create situations where those who want to see
an election suspended may resort to desperate acts to achieve those ends, and
this also cannot be allowed. It will take a lot of serious thought to find the
optimum solution and make suitable adjustments to the electoral laws.
Just as the KMT declared that the election following the 2004 shooting was
unfair, this latest election has also been unfair to the DPP and the 49.87
percent of voters who cast their ballots in its support.
The number of DPP voters exceeded KMT voters by more than 400,000 and the DPP
nearly won an outright majority of votes overall. This shows that most people
refuse to let the criminal underworld run this country and won’t allow bullets
to decide who wins and loses at the ballot box.
If Ma doesn’t want to rule in ignominy, he must quickly come up with solutions
that get to the root of the problem.
|
