THE VOTER SAID NO
Implications and Prospects of the 2008 Presidential Election and Referanda in Taiwan
By Zandro G. Rapadas
Chairman, Namfrel Quezon City (Philippines)
ANFREL International Observer
The presidential election and two referenda held last March 22 have been decided upon
convincingly. Ma Ying Jeou of KMT garnered 58 percent of the votes cast – a resounding victory
that repeats the “landslide” wins by KMT candidates in the Legislative Yuan in January.
Even the outcome for the two referenda affirms the recent KMT victories. Most of the
voters in effect said “no” to two options for Taiwan to return to the United Nations (UN). The
failures of both referendums to reach the set 50 percent threshold and the convincing win by
Ma over DPP’s Frank Hsieh were strong statements by the people of Taiwan that they want a
status quo.
Majority of the voters opted to elect a “Beijing‐friendly” presidential candidate and
forego (at least for the next four years) any attempt to return to the UN, which would inevitably
“catch fire” across the Taiwan Strait. As the March 18 editorial of Taipei Times say, as long as
Taiwan keeps the status quo, it will have more time on its side.
For eight years of DPP rule, which, for many Taiwanese was a period marked by more
rhetoric than accomplishments, the latter felt that this recent political exercise was the right
time to ease out the incumbent and bring in a solid KMT rule in the Executive and Legislative
Yuan, which is hoped to foster better trade relationships with the People’s Republic of China
and its allies.
Indeed, while Taiwan and the Taiwanese people value their national identity,
sovereignty, and due recognition in the international community, the equally important issues
of national security, political stability, and continued economic growth prevailed among them
this time.
The voter said no to Hsieh and his UN dreams and said yes to Ma and his “safer” policy
and stance towards mainland China in order to keep the peace and to move the country’s
economy forward with more liberal trade agreements. Now who can argue with that?
1
However, on March 24, at the joint press conference of the Asian Network for Free
Elections (ANFREL), and the Initiative and Referendum Institute‐Asia (IRI‐Asia) held at the
headquarters of Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (the local NGO that invited both
organizations of international observers), the latter expressed their dismay over the low
turnout of votes for the two referendums. They noted that it was because referendum issues
were not adequately discussed in public and that there were acts of “boycott” done. They
declared the two referendum exercise a failure.
Conversely, this author felt that such statements were unfair to the Taiwanese people:
to those who actively participated by taking the ballot and answering the referendum
questions, and to those who deliberately did not take it.
Here, we must understand three salient points:
First, it is presumptuous to say or even surmise that the people’s understanding of the
issues surrounding the two referenda was inadequate just because a few international
observers (in their limited time and coverage in Taiwan) did not see “enough” public discussion
or public information about it. Not one among the observers had the privilege of being with
each eligible voter 24/7, let alone in the privacy of their own homes or even personal space.
How can anyone say that the voting public did not have adequate discussions on the issues at
hand?
Second, and I have articulated this during the same press conference: What the other
observers regard as “non‐participation” especially with the act of boycott, was actually an act of
participation! The voters who decided not to take any referendum ballot have in fact
manifested their own way of participation in the process because the very act itself is a
statement that they don’t think the referendum questions are relevant. We should respect that
unique expression.
Lastly, may I ask: Who defines success or failure? Who sets the parameters? An elite
few? The people have spoken and it so happened that their manner of expression was not
within the expectations of a few groups who tend to impose on others, whether consciously or
otherwise, their own democratic standards.
2
I don’t think the recent referendum exercise in Taiwan was a failure. On the contrary, it
has triumphed and is worth emulating. For it was a liberation from the standards of a few, an
emancipation of the people from the limiting bars set up by those who think they know
democracy better. I think we should celebrate a Taiwanese people coming of age, indeed a
respectable national identity emerging in this relatively new democracy.
Having been given the task of helping draft the ANFREL statement for this mission, I
took the opportunity to underscore in its second to the last paragraph that “the success of the
recent political exercise in Taiwan and the respectful acceptance of its outcomes strongly
affirms that democracy truly rests on the people, and that all its powers emanate from them.”
This is actually an echoing of one of the tenets enshrined in our own Philippine Constitution,
which I believe is the expression of a universal truth.
END
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Zandro Rapadas, an award‐winning print journalist, holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology
from the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas in Manila and a Master’s degree in
Development Communication (magna cum laude) from the University of the Philippines Open
University. He is now taking his doctoral studies at the University of the Philippines College of
Mass Communication. On May 29, 2008, he will present his masteral thesis, “Participatory
Processes in Catholic‐Church led Social Development Programs in the Philippines: A Review of
the Past 15 Years at the 8th ASEAN Inter‐University Conference on Social Development to be held
in Manila.
3