Ballot Flashing Pledge: DPP Flagrantly Violates Rules of System

Ballot Flashing Pledge: DPP Flagrantly Violates Rules of System
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 3, 2014

Executive Summary: Seated among high-ranking officials of the DPP, green camp candidates for elective office in Kaohsiung recently signed a “Ballot Flashing Pledge.” They agreed that if elected, they “flash their ballots” during the city and county council speaker elections, to prove that they voted the party line. Failure to fulfill the pledge would lead to expulsion from the party. It would also make one the target of a recall initiative. This move by the DPP reveals its determination to achieve “total rule.” Alas, signing such a pledge and submitting to compulsory ballot flashing, is a serious violation of the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

Full Text Below:

Seated among high-ranking officials of the DPP, green camp candidates for elective office in Kaohsiung recently signed a “Ballot Flashing Pledge.” They agreed that if elected, they “flash their ballots” during the city and county council speaker elections, to prove that they voted the party line. Failure to fulfill the pledge would lead to expulsion from the party. It would also make one the target of a recall initiative. This move by the DPP reveals its determination to achieve “total rule.” Alas, signing such a pledge and submitting to compulsory ballot flashing, is a serious violation of the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

The nine in one elections are one month away. Yet the DPP has made this advance arrangement. Clearly the DPP leadership is determined to seize total control over the Kaohsiung City Government. It nurses vast ambitions. Local government speaker and deputy speaker elections often involve the ugly phenomenon of vote buying. But blue and green camp vote buying is merely the pot calling the kettle black. Neither comes out looking particulary good. The DPP failed to nominate candidates with any character. It has failed to impose party discipline. Now it is ordering candidates to sign a "ballot flashing pledge," to prevent them from straying from the party line. It has led representative government down the primrose path. It has twisted the meaning of the law so that it can then violate it. It has exploited technical loopholes. It has opportunistically trampled over democracy.

According to parliamentary rules of procedure, votes on personnel appointments are usually conducted in secret. Votes on issues are usually conducted out in the open. In the former case, this avoids pressure, threats, and inducements. In the latter case, this demonstrates political responsibility and political spirit. The ROC "Local System Law" Article 44 expressly provides that: Directly Administered Municipality City Councils,  County and City Council Speakers and Deputy Speakers, shall be elected or recalled by Directly Administered City and County Council Members by meabs of secret ballots." This is the reason why.

Legislative Yuan elections also use secret ballots. But when the ruling and opposition parties want to prevent party members from deviating from the party line, they resort to inventions such as "technical ballot flashing.” This has already undermined the rule of law. The DPP is requiring Kaohsiung City Council candidates who have not signed the “ballot flashing pledge” before the election to sign a "resignation and renunciation of authority pledge." In effect, the whim of the party has trumped the rule of law. How is this any different from organized crime syndicates that require aspiring members to sign agreements indenturing themselves to the gang? Yet the DPP is resorting to such measures merely to prevent party members from voting against the party line. This is both unscrupulous and horrific.

Local city and county councils have a long history of poor discipline. Thirty years of democratization on Taiwan has yet to raise the standard of local politics. In the final analysis, party politics bears no relationship to party ideals. During the speaker elections following the recent five cities elections, party members against the party line. Parties demanded ballot flashing, especially in Kaohsiung and Tainan. In Tainan, the KMT expelled 10 members who voted against the party line. The DPP expelled three. As a result, independents became the largest force on the Tainan City Council. In Kaohsiung, 66 council members were implicated. Among these, over 50 accepted plea bargains. Another 12 were indicted for "leaking secrets.” More than three years have passed. But only one person was sentenced to five months' imprisonment. Seven are still awaiting trial. One person was acquitted. This is why the law is subject to so many different interpretations, Many council members are utterly indifferent to the legal penalties for ballot flashing. In fact, prosecuting ballot flashing by invoking "leaking secrets" cannot convict suspects of vote buying. As a result they receive only a slap on the hand for serious crimes.

How can vote buying by local city and county councils be stopped? Three solutions are available. In terms of party politics, we must nominate candidates of moral character. Party discipline must prevent voting against the party line. This is the most basic way in which to clear the air. In terms of criminal prosecution, vote buying by council members must be prosecuted more vigorously. Sufficient evidence must be gathered to indict offenders for vote buying, and not merely ballot flashing. We must not flinch in the face of politics. In terms of politics, we must decide whether to amend the Local Government Act, and whether speaker and deputy speaker elections should use secret ballots. If we choose the latter, we have already compromised. It will merely make bribe takers exempt. The standard of local politics will be even more difficult to raise.

Ironically, in August the Legislative Yuan implemented the Legislative Yuan Oversight Authority. The DPP trumpeted the principle of "no party ballot tracking, not ballot flashing.” It assumed an air of self-righteousness. The DPP legislative caucus accused ruling KMT legislators who flashed ballots of "violating legislative autonomy," and of "violating the spirit of independent voting." It angrily warned President Ma against "interfering with Legislative Yuan voting." Are ballot flashing and independent voting truly that important? If they are, they why are DPP candidates now being forced to sign "ballot flashing pledges?" Conversely, if the KMT has no consistent position on secret balloting, how can it oppose the DPP's compulsory ballot flashing?

Returning to our original point, certain issues must be clarified. For speaker and deputy speaker elections, what should elected officials do? Should they exercise their own free will, or act in accordance with the wishes of their parties? Secondly, when voters cast their ballots, must council members vote for their own party's speaker and deputy speaker candidates? Also, if council members refuse to flash their ballots, as in green camp member Chii Chang's case, do political parties have the right to nullify the election results, and demand that council members ignore their constituents' expectations?

Political parties are unable to impose party discipline. Yet they are eager to trample over the laws to impose their will. This is not the proper path to democracy. Tsai Ing-wen and Chen Chu owe the people an explanation. They opposed this practice over the past three months. Now however, three months later, they are cracking the whip, forcing party members to engage in the very same practice.

亮票承諾書：民進黨公然踐踏民主法制
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.03 02:09 am

在民進黨中央大員坐鎮下，高雄市綠營議員候選人日前集體簽下一紙「亮票承諾書」，同意在當選議員後、選舉議長時，一致公開「亮票」接受黨團監督；若不履行承諾者，除將開除黨籍，還要發動罷免。民進黨此舉，展現了追求「完全執政」的決心；然而，以簽署承諾書的方式強制亮票，則嚴重挑戰了民主和法律。

距離九合一選舉結果出爐還有一個月，民進黨如此早早發動部署，可見黨中央對於把高雄府會「整碗捧去」，抱有莫大的企圖。各地正副議長選情確實常受買票陋習左右，但藍綠買票、賣票情況只能說是「龜笑鱉沒尾」，誰也不比誰高明。在這種情況下，不從源頭去提名品操端正的候選人，或佐以黨紀的強力約束，卻要求候選人簽下「亮票承諾書」來防堵跑票，恐怕已使代議政治走上「曲意違法」及「技術主義」的歧路，是對民主的投機與踐踏。

根據議事學原理，關於人事的表決通常採取俗稱「祕密投票」的「無記名投票」，有關議案的表決則採記名投票。主要是，前者可避免受人情壓力、威脅利誘，後者則可彰顯政黨責任政治精神。我國《地方制度法》第四十四條明文規定：「直轄市議會、縣（市）議會議長、副議長，由直轄市議員、縣（市）以無記名投票分別互選或罷免之。」原因在此。

立法院長的選舉，也是採取「不記名投票」。唯朝野為了防止黨員跑票，爾虞我詐，因此才有「技術性亮票」的發明，這其實已經是挖法制的牆腳。而這次，民進黨要求高雄市議員候選人在未當選前即簽下「亮票承諾書」，同時還簽下「市議員辭職書」、「辭職撤回權拋棄書」，更形同是「黨意壓倒法令」。這種作法，和幫派要求加入者簽下「賣身契」，有何兩樣？僅僅為防「跑票」，如此不擇手段，令人駭異。

地方議會的風紀欠佳其來有自，而台灣歷經卅年民主化，地方政治品質依舊無法提升，追根究柢，與政黨經營政治的理念流失有絕對的關係。上屆五都選舉後的議長選舉，各地均發生了嚴重的跑票及亮票事件，尤以高雄與台南為最。在台南，國民黨開除了十名跑票議員的黨籍，民進黨開除三人，使得「無黨籍」成為台南議會最大勢力。在高雄市，六十六名議員均涉案，其中五十餘人認罪協商，另十二人以「洩漏國防以外祕密罪」被起訴；至今歷時三年多，僅一人被判五個月徒刑定讞，七人仍在訴訟中，一人獲判無罪。也正因司法見解落差極大，許多議員對亮票的法律責任根本不以為意。事實上，以「洩密罪」來偵辦亮票，卻無法將之與「賄選」行為聯繫，更是司法的避重就輕。

要遏堵地方議會的賄選歪風，有三個層次的解決之道：在政黨層次，要加強拔擢才德之士，以黨紀約束跑票行為，這是追求政風澄清的根本之計；在司法層次，對議會買票惡行要加強偵辦蒐證，要辦到「賄選」，而不能只辦到「亮票」，更不能一遇政治即手軟；在政治層次，則是決定要不要修《地制法》，將正副議長選舉改為「記名投票」。但若選擇後者，則已走至下策，只是使收賄議員免責，地方政治的品質將更難聞問。

諷刺的是，立法院八月間行使監委同意權投票時，民進黨高唱「不監票、不亮票」原則，一派正氣凜然。民進黨團除指責執政黨要求黨籍立委亮票是「違反國會自主」、「違反獨立投票精神」，更怒嗆馬總統「不要再干涉國會投票」。如果「不亮票」和「自主投票」是如此重要的原則，民進黨為何今天又去強迫候選人簽下「亮票承諾書」？反過來說，國民黨若對「祕密投票」沒有一貫的立場，又如何出聲反對民進黨的強迫簽約行為？

溯本正源，相關爭議首先要釐清的是，對於正副議長選舉，民意代表是否能行使自由意志，抑或只能根據黨意行事？其次，選民投下議員票時，是否已同時限制該議員只能投同黨議員出任議長？再者，若只是因為議員基於自重拒絕亮票（如綠委邱彰之例），政黨有沒有資格抹殺選舉結果，要求議員拋棄選民之託放棄當選資格？

黨紀約束不了的事，卻要用踐踏法律的手段來達成，這絕非民主政治的正當途徑。蔡英文和陳菊也欠人民一個解釋：為何三個月前堅決反對的事，三個月後竟要用鞭子強迫黨員去做？