US to accept ‘Taiwan’ on entry forms? Really?

A report on Taipei Times (TT) informs us that the US government is changing it's custom policy to "accept ‘Taiwan’ on entry forms" for Taiwanese citizens entering the United States.

The case involves an effort to correct a naming issue on the entry forms. It was raised by the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and pushed forward by Democrat House Representative, Howard Berman, to "allow Taiwanese to list Taiwan as their country" -- or so written by the TT report :

The US Department of Homeland Security has changed its policy and will now allow Taiwanese citizens entering the US to list Taiwan as their country of citizenship rather than China (Taiwan).

The TT report continues:

Berman protested to US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano last month after he discovered that Taiwanese were required to write “China (Taiwan)” on their Form I-94 entry document and in the Global Entry Program

These descriptions doesn't sound right, especially the words I mark red. For one thing, I've been entering the US, using the I-94 and filling up other entry forms so many times in the past. But I've never been asked to write "China(Taiwan)" as my country on any of my entry document.

I asked some Taiwanese, and got the same thing: they've never heard of, or were asked to follow, such a "requirement" when entering the USA. They have been using the term "Taiwan" like I did on all their entry forms for decades without being questioned.

It's more likely that the US government never has such a policy to force Taiwanese citizens to write "China(Taiwan)" in order to get admission.

But then why did Berman ever bother to seek the solution to a problem that never exists ?

Read what Berman actually said in his own news release ,

Many Taiwanese citizens travel across our borders every day. These individuals should not be required to sign their name under an inaccurate statement in an official government document.

In his letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano --- the letter that pushes this issue forward, Berman wrote:

It has recently come to my attention that when Taiwanese citizens enter the United States, the I-94 documents they are issued by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lists their country of citizenship as “China (Taiwan).” Similarly, in the application process for CBP’s Global Entry Program, the CBP system refers to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China.”

There's no where in either his blog or letter did he ever write something like Taiwanese were required to write “China (Taiwan)”.

The form I-94 is a form denoting the Arrival-Departure Record of particular foreigners used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and it must be completed at the time of entry to the United States by foreign citizens that are being admitted into the United States in a nonimmigrant visa status. --- wiki

As far as I know, people could receive the I-94 in two ways:

1. Receiving it as a blank form that you need to fill up by yourself before you enter the USA. Most likely for people who are not in the USA to apply for entry;

2. Receiving it as a form that already has your personal information pre-filled. It is issued to people who are in the USA with a non-immigrant status (like, students) and want to leave the country for a short period. They have to apply for re-entry permission before they leave the USA. That's when the I-94 is issued to them as a pre-filled form.

What the FAPA questioned, and the one Berman pushed, is obviously  the case 2, where the I-94 is issued by the US government with your info pre-printed, including the Country of Citizenship.

For some reason, the US government keeps messing it up by printing "China(Taiwan)" on the I-94 of Taiwanese non-immigrants who want to go out and re-enter the USA, as shown by a sample on Berman's website:

Fig.1. A pre-filled I-94 form, issued as a re-entry permit by the US to Taiwanese who were in the US and intend to leave the US for a short time. Source: Rep. Berman's news release. 

It could be due to laziness, lack of knowledge or communication, carelessness, or some other factors. By no means is that an indication that the USA had a policy to "require Taiwanese to write 'China(Taiwan)' as their country" as the TT article described.

A simple testimony to that fact is that some Taiwanese non-immigrants simply returned the wrong pre-filled I-94 by noting that the Country of Citizenship is wrong. They got a new I-94 with "Taiwan" on it. They couldn't have done so if there was a requirement in the policy.

Another testimony is that, in case 1 where Taiwanese fill up their info by themselves, they have been allowed to enter 'Taiwan' since long time ago. 

There's no doubt that the effort of FAPA and Rep. Berman, as well as the response from the Homeland Security is a victory. But it's more like a victory to get the US government to clarify the inconsistency in their own naming system. It's not a victory of getting the US to have a policy change in favor of Taiwan like the TT article portrays. A misleading with a twist of facts should never have happened in such a high quality news agency. 

民主化是無止境的進程

最近綠營有一些關於『台灣是不是民主國家』的討論，內容相當有意義 【1】。

不過，在我看來，『民主』這東西，用『過程』來看，可能比用『狀態』來看要恰當。

用『狀態』來看就是：我們是不是個民主國家；
用『過程』來看就是：我們是不是個越來越民主的國家；

畢竟追求民主是一個不斷前進，而且通常必須歷經很長時間的過程。美國開國時的憲法立下了人生而平等的理想，但建國後很長一段時間，在很多州裡，女人跟黑人都沒有投票權。即使美國政府在 1870 年通過了憲法修正案，嚴格禁止各州政府以膚色為投票資格，但是甚至到了 1950 ～60 年代，有的州還存在著很嚴重的種族隔離與歧視的問題。不但民間有嚴重歧視，連地方政府與民意機關都還可以完全無視憲法的存在，公開的、正式的以立法或行政命令確保黑人必須被歧視。

換言之，美國的民主，是花了將近 200 年才慢慢做到現在這個樣子的。即使在現在這個時代，司法不公、檢方造假（有意或無意）害無辜被告被處死、警察圍毆無自衛能力的黑人致死的消息也時有所聞。

我們不妨把現在擺一邊，光看 1950 年代的美國，到底是不是民主國家？就看你『民主國家』的標準要從哪裡切。如果以整個國家整體的民主進程，或者只看白人不看黑人，也許我們可以說 1950 年的美國可以是民主的。但如果以『人權』，尤其是黑人不被當人看的角度，那1950 年的美國應該是不夠格的。

在世界各地，很多國家人民在爭取民主，其中有不少是必須付出相當慘重的生命代價的。我記得看過經濟學人的一篇文章講伊拉克某某地區的選舉，說該次選舉有十幾個候選人被暗殺，比上次進步很多。我嚇了一跳，暗殺十幾個候選人還能叫進步？原來上次選舉被暗殺的是『幾十個』。

這只是一些例子。如果我們去問國際人士，尤其是那些知曉為民主付出慘重生命代價的國家的國際人士，台灣是不是一個民主國家，恐怕很少人會回答說『不是』。

但，從另外一個角度看，我們在討論『台灣是不是一個民主國家』時，所提出的一些『台灣還不夠格』的論點，譬如說司法不公、賄選氾濫等，卻又忠實地反應台灣確實在很多方面離期望中的民主標準還有相當的距離。

所以，『台灣是不是一個民主國家』這個問題的答案，恐怕就跟 1950 年的美國一樣，就看你要從哪個條件切起。

但這樣問題就來了 -- 誰有權決定從哪裡切才對？

這不但每個人有各自的看法，而且，因為任何一個國家恐怕都可以找到『不民主』的部分，因此對有心人來說，任何國家都可以被切成『不民主』。尤其如果你剛好不幸是這個『不民主』的受害者 （以美國為例，如果你是被檢察官誣陷致死的受害者），則更是如此。

所以，『台灣是不是一個民主國家』這個針對『絕對狀態』的問法，恐怕是很難得到有共識的客觀答案的。

因此，如果真的要問台灣的民主狀況，不妨針對民主進程，也就是『民主化的程度』來問：台灣是不是越來越民主? 台灣民主化的程度到底有多少？

我想這才是比較實際而且客觀的問法。

事實上，確實有不少衡量一個國家『民主化程度』的指標存在。不過這個超出本文範圍，以後有空再談。

說到這裡，順便談到幾個聯想：

1. 為什麼我之前強調中國民主化是不可能的？看看世界各國民主化的過程，再拿來跟中國比較文化與人口，我相信中國根本不可能民主化。或者中國如果有民主化，恐怕得再等個上千年。台灣人去替別的國家推那種根本不可能達到的東西，只有白白浪費生命而已 【2】；

2. 雖說民主化是『進程』，但世界上的國家也有從民主化的過程中，往後倒退變成獨裁國家的。所以沒有人保證爭取民主化的過程一定是往前走的；

3. 因為『民主化』是一個進程而非『狀態』，而且還有可能『倒退嚕』，所以不管現在的民主化的程度，我們都必須不斷地努力讓台灣往前更民主化一些。這個看法有助於讓我們了解：追求民主是一段永無止境的過程，不是說用幾個事先設定的標準把台灣歸類為民主國家這樣就可以休息了。這有點像是說：『建國』是一個不斷努力的過程，而不是只要名義上獨立了，建國就完成了。

4. 因為民主化不是一個絕對值，所以一個大致上民主化的國家，也有可能在某種情況下，對該國自己國民或是對他國做出不民主的事情。所以，不能以為一個國家只要被歸類為民主，其所言所行都將百分之百符合正義的標準。

5. 也許這樣的觀察與思考，可以幫助我們跳出『二分法』的傳統思維方式。『二分法』將複雜的人類行為簡化成黑白兩面，思考、觀點、立場、態度，都因為這樣的簡化而僵化，不但脫離現實，而且讓弱勢者更容易被權威勢力所操控。因此，試著從動態的、不斷演化的角度去看民主（或其他任何人事物），避免把整個國家單純地歸類為民主或不民主，也許有助於使我們的思維突破傳統的僵化，讓我們更貼近現實。



【1】臺灣是民主國家嗎？
http://blackrain.skycity.cc/2012/07/05/13278.html
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/i_love_taiwan/fC3Dg8effYA
http://denghongsblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/blog-post.html

【2】外國的政治社會不是民進黨的責任
http://echotaiwan.blogspot.com/2012/06/blog-post.html

外國的政治社會不是民進黨的責任

蔡英文在她的臉書與 Google+ 發表了關於中國六四紀念的談話，強調了六四在中國民主的關鍵地位，以及對於六四的平反的重要性。最後，蔡英文以這樣的一段做結尾【1】：

中國社會在這些年來歷經了快速的轉變，我們要看到這些轉變，更要促成中國社會往自由、民主化的方向轉變。國民黨並沒有扛起這樣的責任，也無意促成這樣的轉變，我們期待民進黨把責任扛在肩上，這是台灣民主的價值，也是我們一直不斷追求的目標。

把中國民主化當作民進黨的責任？

民進黨是由黨員組成的團體，交黨費的是黨員，服務的對象主要也是黨員。因此民進黨第一層『責任範疇』是民進黨黨員。

如果民進黨出來競選，也有不少非民進黨黨員的台灣人支持他們，並透過投票的方式賦予他們權力。藉此，民進黨的『責任範疇』會擴大到整個台灣。由此，民進黨應該負責的對象，一是民進黨員，二是台灣人。

但民進黨的『責任範疇』僅止於此。外國或外國人既不是民進黨的權力賦予者，更不是民進黨的資源提供者，民進黨對他們沒有任何義務，更不需對他們負擔什麼責任。

民進黨只要專心把自己黨內的事情做好，好好的做一個為黨員負責的政黨，然後好好的做一個為台灣的自由民主化負責的政黨，讓台灣成為一個民主的榜樣。這才是民進黨的 『責任範疇』 。

因此，不管從哪個角度看，民進黨既沒有義務，更沒有權力把台灣以外任何國家的政治制度或社會現象當做民進黨的責任。

事實上，不管是任何國家的任何政黨，把其他國家的政治社會當作自己的責任，都會是一件很荒謬的事。

我向來對蔡英文非常欣賞的一點，是她知道『分寸』 -- 一個位置的 『責任範疇』 在哪裡，站在該位置的人該對誰負責，她抓得比誰都清楚。如果不是她權責範圍，她不會撈過界搶著做。

但是，這次把外國的民主化當作一個政黨的責任，顯然是大大地撈過了界。

國民黨向來以『台灣人必須為中國未來負責』的心態在處理台灣跟中國的關係。因此我們看到許多由全國人民的納稅錢累積的政府資產，沒有適當地回饋給台灣人，反而被拿去優待、撫養、資助中國人。

這種情況造成人民賦予的權力被挪用到該權力不應該使用的地方，變成對該負責的對象沒負到責，對不該負責的對象卻搶著籠絡的不正常現象。這種現象對台灣人來說是一種歧視，因為那種心態等於說台灣人應該做牛做馬讓外國人過好日子。

這一切問題的根源，正是無法清楚劃分『責任範疇』。如果民進黨真的把外國的政治、社會現象當作自己的責任，那恐將走向國民黨把資源用在外國的錯誤心態。蔡英文的這個說法，恐怕是把政黨的責任範疇給搞模糊了。

民進黨應該盡力讓自己、讓台灣做一個可以學習的榜樣。至於外國要不要學，那是外國人的選擇，不是台灣人的責任，更不是民進黨的責任。若從另一個角度來看，中國人應該學著對自己的政治制度與社會文化負責，而台灣人也應該學著尊重中國人自己的選擇。如果搶要把中國民主化當作民進黨的責任，那表示我們認為中國人沒有能力對自己負責，那是對中國人的侮辱。

【1】蔡英文：民進黨需扛起中國民主化責任
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114541410033130759915/posts/2GJG9bMa6xN

空泛不實的罷免案

馬英九的第二任期就要開始了。日前，民進黨跟台聯黨立院黨團趕著在馬英九的第一任期結束前，在立法院提出對馬英九第一任期的罷免案。

罷免這個法條的用意，是要通過民意，讓失職的民選政治人物不再能夠利用職權危害人民。所以『下台』應該是祭出罷免提案的目的。

但馬英九第一任期只剩下幾天，而且，若無國民黨立委的支援，即使完全整合所有在野黨實力也無法通過罷免案，因此要馬英九下台根本不可能。

那民台兩黨為什麼還要浪費社會資源提出這個根本達不到目的的法案？

根據民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘的說法，是要『給馬英九一個警告』。他說：

在此要警告馬英九，第一任總統是以罷免案結束，不希望第二任總統是以罷免案開始，相信這個罷免案的提出是一個國會的紀錄，是一個歷史的印證，希望給馬英九當頭­喝棒，也讓後人知道這是此時人民共同心聲。【1】

問題是，『在國會提出罷免案』有任何實質意義而可以『作為歷史印證』嗎？

我們知道：任何立法委員都可以在國會提出任何案子。即使一個案子在立法院裡面完全沒有任何其他支持者，你還是可以提出該案。以罷免總統來說，即使一個總統在立法院享有絕對多數立委的支持，剩下的少數立委也可以『提出』罷免案。

因此『有人提案』本身是不具任何代表性意義的。若要作為歷史見證，一個罷免案必須經過法定程序成案，代表真的是有多數立法委員敢站出來罷免馬英九，那才具歷史意義。這種行動唯有在事先與部分國民黨立委取得共識的先決條件下才有可能進行。而綠營這次提出的罷免案卻連個邊都沾不到。

也因為不可能成案，因此所謂的『第一任總統是以罷免案結束』的說法只是用來讓自己感覺良好的扭曲詮釋。所謂的『不希望第二任總統是以罷免案開始』就更加空泛了。

由於提出了根本不可能達到任何實質目的的罷免案，而提出的說辭卻又是非常空泛，綠營這次的罷免案，本質上只是一場純粹要讓馬英九難看的政治秀罷了。

然而這場政治秀卻凸顯出綠營政黨非常嚴重的兩個根本性問題。

一. 不知政黨角色定位在哪裡

政黨存在的意義是什麼？綠營兩黨爭取了增加在國會中的立委席次，這些立委的目的到底在哪裡？是為了要讓敵對政黨難看嗎？

不是的。政黨存在是為了人民，而立法委員的存在是為了要替社會提供更完善的法律，讓整個國家更進步。

Michael Turton 在近日的一篇文章【2】講到國民黨現在正打算利用出賣國土與政府資產給財團的方式來降低赤字。這是在把台灣全民所有的硬體賣給私人來補償因為政府腐敗無能而產生的經濟困境 -- 政黨貪腐無能導致人民損失，然後再拿屬於人民的硬體來補人民的損失。而我們都知道，在馬英九全力引進中國勢力的情況下，這些屬於全民的台灣資產最後會落到誰的手裡。任何人都可以想像這後果會有多嚴重。

這只是台灣目前急需面對的千千萬萬個難題之一。類似像這樣對全民資產的鯨吞蠶食現在正不斷發生。在執政黨立委無恥地替搜刮人民權益的政策護航的情況下，人民唯一能夠仰賴的只有在野黨。

但在野黨在忙什麼呢？進行政治角力讓馬英九難看？這是選民托負的責任嗎？這是千頭萬緒必須處理的問題中的重要事項嗎？這種毫無實質意義的罷免提案，能夠解決任何人民的困境或幫助這個社會往前走一點點嗎？

從這裡可以看出，綠營兩黨似乎對於自己角色定位的認知相當混亂，因而無法在『政治鬥爭』與『為民服務』兩者之間分辨出哪一個才是政黨的本份，因此才會有目前這種把立法委員當做政治鬥爭工具的鬧劇出來【3】。

如果一個政黨忘了自己存在主要功能是為人民解決問題，而把有限的資源用在讓政敵難看上頭，那人民對這種政黨還能有什麼期待呢？

二. 缺乏深謀遠慮的眼光

以長遠的綠營與藍營對抗的策略運用來看，綠營兩黨這次的政治操作恐怕受傷最重的還是自己。讓我大略翻譯英文台北時報前幾天的社論的一部分【4】 來陳述這個觀點(該文作者部落格在【5】)：

民進黨在蔡英文過去四年帶領下所達到的成就已經因為黨內領導階層的傾軋而飽受威脅。看來他們似乎完全喪失目的與方向感。自從蔡英文離開黨主席職位後，民進黨已經陷入一場混亂，自己無法提出明確的政策，只會不斷地針對馬英九與他的政策進行全面的攻擊。

這種反射動作似的攻擊在最近走向極端：民進黨立法委員宣稱他們要在馬英九第一任期還剩下一個多禮拜時對他提出罷免案。

雖然馬英九因為一連串的失策，而使其受歡迎的程度在最近跌落到有史以來最低的水準，但綠營這個罷免案能夠造成的唯一後果就是促使國民黨團結起來。而這個團結國民黨的行動，是在國民黨本身已經開始在根本上呈現裂痕的時候。這點可以從國民黨立法委員在立法院的重要議題上脫離國民黨的黨意而表現自主投票的行為上看得出來。

如果民進黨在事務的處理上謹慎一些，成熟一些，在行動上僅止於參與抗議，那國民黨本身的裂解將會自己加深，這將給綠營難得的機會向某些藍營的勢力招兵買馬尋求合作的機會。

但現在這個機會已經流失。藍營看到他們的領導者被圍攻，他們已經開始團結起來，積極化解各派系對馬英九與他的行政單位的攻擊。

更有甚者，民進黨這種表現，讓民進黨自己看起來像個輸不起的一方，好像在告訴人民：即使民進黨在過去四年已經歷經了相當程度的改革，但在輸掉這次總統大選之後，他們決定走回以前那種飢不擇食的老路 - 譬如說，像這次提出的這個罷免案。

也就是說，透過這個罷免案，綠營不但告訴人民：政治纏鬥比人民生計還重要，而且對於馬英九的腐敗無能所製造出來的國民黨裂痕（這是從天上掉下來的禮物！），沒有加以善用，反而在這個節骨眼上攻擊對方的指揮中心，因而平白幫國民黨製造了彌補裂痕、進行團結的契機。

這種賠了夫人又折兵的自殺性舉動，無疑顯示綠營的領導階層在長遠的謀略上嚴重缺乏具有視野的人才。

民進黨、台聯黨立院黨團於（2012年）5月14日聯合召開記者會，對馬英九只剩下不到一個禮拜的第一任期提出罷免案。由於毫無成功機會，此罷免案形同對人民賦予立法委員職責的浪費，同時白白送給已經分崩離析的國民黨彌補內部裂痕加速團結的理由。（照片翻拍自獨立媒體現場錄影  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRy-JE-n2oY ）

綠營需要從根部進行改革

綠營已經跟國民黨有幾十年的對抗經驗，到底什麼地方出了問題，為什麼到現在還弄不清楚，真正需要的是對人民實質有益的事，而不是表面上的政治花招？為什麼這麼多年了，還會使用這種招數幫助國民黨團結，同時把自己推向絕境？這是綠營必須嚴肅面對並深入檢討的問題。

看來，綠營政黨不只需要改革，而且還必須從政黨高層的心態上做徹底的革命，才能有承擔人民託付的重任的可能性。

【1】在野黨聯合提案罷免馬英九 國會記錄、歷史印證
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRy-JE-n2oY
【2】Shock Doctrine: Zounds!! OMG debt SELL THE LAND NOW
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2012/05/shock-doctrine-zounds-omg-debt-sell.html
【3】台灣綠營提罷免馬英九 藍批：政治鬧劇
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/12/5/15/n3588875.htm%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%B6%A0%E7%87%9F%E6%8F%90%E7%BD%B7%E5%85%8D%E9%A6%AC%E8%8B%B1%E4%B9%9D-%E8%97%8D%E6%89%B9-%E6%94%BF%E6%B2%BB%E9%AC%A7%E5%8A%87
【4】EDITORIAL: The DPP’s self-defeating shenanigans（民進黨自我毀滅的鬧劇）
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/05/18/2003533086
【5】The DPP’s self-defeating shenanigans / J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.com/2012/05/dpps-self-defeating-shenanigans.html

2012 Election Controversy: Official Vote Rigging?

The 2012 election is over. The incumbent Ma Ying-jeou of KMT party, after a hard fight, won with a comfortable margin of 6% (see the table in the end of this article) over the challenging candidate, Chairperson of the DPP, Dr. Tsai Ing-wen.

To many of Tsai's supporters, however, the election outcome is questionable. That mind set mainly (my observation) comes from two factors: First, the popularity of Tsai prior to the election was so high, making people feel that there's no way Tsai could have lost, let alone lost with such a margin. Secondly, the vote counting process is way too problematic, when comparing to what people experienced in the past elections. People reported all sort of different abnormalities and law violations of the vote counting behaviors in many counting stations all around the country. Just a couple of examples to let readers understand why voters doubt the result,

* When counting Tsai's votes, two tickets were read once, but when counting Ma's, one ticket was read twice;

*  Tsai's ballot was read correctly, but was recorded as Ma's when entered into the record;

* At the time of counting process started, people were blocked by the police for 10 to 15 minutes before they were allowed to enter the counting room. When they did enter, the ballot box already opened (this is against the law) and counting already started;

* More common complaints: many stations rushed the counting in a super speedy way such that people who watched were not able to tell if the counting was correct. For example, one station with 700 voters finished the counting of all ~2100 ballots ( each voter has 3 ballots: president, legislator, party)  in less than 20 minutes, averaging more than ~105 ballots/minute. If the counting proceeds as required by the law, one ballot would have taken at least 3 seconds. In one minute, you can only count ~20 ballots at most.

These are just the tip of iceberg among overwhelming complaints that I heard.

Because that voters are not allowed to carry any electronic device into the voting room (well, in the location I went to, this rule was violated, too -- people were only asked to turn off the cell phone. Not only was cell phones were allowed, but also there was no check on any other devices), any voting violation can't be caught on camera. And because the vote counting started right after the voting was done at 4 pm sharp, many people who voted and waited to watch the counting didn't have a camera with them. So most of the counting violations reported so far didn't come with evidence. This is a hard lesson to learn for democracy.

However, that doesn't mean the vote counting is completely safe from scrutiny. At the time of counting, the counting progress was recorded and published live online on the official website by the Central Election Commission (CEC),  the official unit in charge of all things related to elections. One guy took screen shots, roughly one in every 3 minutes, and made a slideshow out of them. There were total of 68 slides starting from 17:48 (note: the counting started at 16:00) to 21:59 (when all the counting was completed) on Jan 14th.

Since I am usually obsessed with any data of time series nature, I tried to write down the votes on each slide along with its time and total counted stations,  to see how the counting proceeded. Much to my surprise, there is one abnormality that puts me in disbelief : on slides from 21:00 to 21:06, when the total counted stations remains unchanged for 6 minutes -- which means that the vote count should have been unchanged -- Tsai's votes mysteriously dropped, and Ma's increased. See the screenshots below.

The screenshots, summarized in the following table,  indicate that in the official ballot counting, Tsai's votes dropped and Ma's increased when there's no new counting stations added.

Time	Tsai	Ma	Soong	Diff
21:00	6088958	6881307	369012
21:03	6088958	6881307	369012	0
21:06	6088278	6882220	369024	Tsai -680 Ma +913

It seems that the official election commission is automatically adjusting the vote counts in favor of Ma Ying-jeou in the middle of counting. The adjustment we are able to see is not large: Tsai down by 680 and Ma up by 913. But that might be an indication of something much more serious in the official counting which could have been carried through the entire course of counting. We don't know if the final result given to us is the true count or the count after such a possible systematic adjustment.  

The numerous counting violations in local stations in favor of Ma as seen by many voters might not account for the winning edge of Ma's (~ 800,000 votes). However, if such an auto ballot adjustment does exist right inside the CEC, it could have more damaging effect. Comparing to potential ballot rigging on local counting stations, in which the outcome is unpredictable, a direct adjustment on the numbers in the official final steps ensures Ma's win with a predefined ratio -- a ratio large enough to exceed the maximal vote difference required by law for a recount.

Interestingly, the doubt on Ma's winning based on a predefined ratio does circulate based on different channel of info. Recall that Ma got total of 6,891,139 votes. In Taiwan, large numbers are described in shorter form on  base of 10,000 (called 萬). For example, Ma's votes would be called >6 million in English, but "689 萬" in Taiwan's language. So the number "689" is meaningful.

Two days before the voting, a netter named v99999 posted on the forum of xFuture website with a definite tone of prediction of the election outcome with the number 689. I translated the content, with most of original format below:

~Please remember~689~Don't be shocked Posted by v99999 at 2012-01-12 17:54 #

評價： 39

~Please remember ~689~ Don't be shocked ~Please remember ~689~ Don't be shocked What does it represent ?? You will know it the day after tomorrow,,,There are many things that can't be learned by deduction and statistics.,,,Is it something not yet occurred? In fact, it already occurred,,,Many people always wait till the time of seeing it to ask why. In fact there's no "why" to it,,,It is just the way it is,,, 689

In fact, some reported that the same netter already predicted the number 689 on Jan,7th, one week before the voting. 

Is it a coincident ? A prediction of powerful fortune teller ? Or, a leak from someone who knew something behind the scene ? In a followup post to the above one, v99999 claimed that he/she actually saw the number before the election. The tone in the post makes people wonder  if the election outcome was already defined before the voting. 

There are many other reports of potential ballot rigging. The more you heard, the more you start to doubt if the election is indeed rigged. Many people against this ballot rigging theory claim that it's impossible to rig, 'cos every party would send people to each single counting station to monitor the votes and do the vote count themselves to ensure the counting is correct.

But here is where it gets even more bizarre -- the DPP didn't send people to watch a large number of counting stations !! Many voters reported that when they went to watch the counting voluntarily, they didn't see anyone from the DPP.  In as many as 1600, 2000 or even 5000 stations, according to different sources, out of the total of 14806 counting stations, the DPP didn't assign anyone to monitor and collect the vote counts. 

How on earth could this have happened? The DPP has a long history of experience fighting against the KMT, a party that has long been recognized by people with vote rigging. Fighting against such a rigging-prone party, you would imagine the DPP will definitely monitor the counting closely. In fact, in the past elections, especially ones as critical as the president election, the campaign team of DPP always mobilized and trained people to watch the counting very closely to prevent the vote rigging. Why did they skip it and just let the KMT did whatever they wanted to do this time?

If there indeed was ballot rigging by Ma Ying-jeou's government and the KMT, the DPP campaign team must be seen as partly responsible, at least on the basis of negligence. There might be something more to it. My instinct tells me that someone inside the DPP didn't want to see Tsai elected. I can go on for several articles on this but we will stop here.To people interested in the DPP politics, especially how Tsai Ing-wen struggled to guide the DPP through trouble waters within different fighting forces inside the DPP, this is a topic worth of study.

Anyhow, this article is about the vote rigging of this election. Some more studies on the vote counting might reveal more of the details. Or maybe sometime in the future, some might come out with more evidence. No matter what, this election must be recorded in the history book with not just the result but all the vote counting of law violating nature.


Update: 


1/31/12: See more counting violations compiled by Claudia.
1/31/12: The DPP releases a statement saying that they had nearly the same amount of vote-count monitors as the number of counting stations. 
2/1/12: The CEC releases a statement saying that it's an input error. 

Reference:
Summary of the 14 January 2012 Republic of China presidential election results from wiki

Party		Candidate		Votes	%
		Pres	V. pres
	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%

Tsai will get at least 47% votes -- UDN Editorial

Observers have been highly confused by polls for the upcoming 2012 presidential election --- blue media claims that Ma keeps leading by a margin around 2~8%, and pro-green media say 50-50, which will likely be translated, according to past experiences, into that Tsai's the winner by a margin as large as 10~15%.

Oddly, the United Daily News (UDN), one of the can't-be-bluer KMT propaganda-like media, published an editorial today, claiming that Tsai will get at least 47%. Their reasoning, in fact, indicated that the 47% is a bit underestimated:

The premise of this framework is that Tsai gets 47% votes. Two references support this idea:

1. Frank Hsieh got 42% in 2008, and the momentum of DPP now is stronger than the DPP in 2008, and support to Tsai is also stronger than the support to Hsieh in 2008. So Tsai's votes will go up from 42%;

2. Chen Shui-bian got 51.11% in 2004. Although it was interfered by the 319 shooting, but whichever you look at it, it shows that the DPP has the potential to get 50% support of the voters. Now the momentum of DPP is stronger than that in 2004, and Tsai is better than Chen, therefore Tsai has the potential of approaching 50%.

Based on these two references, it's convincing to argue that Tsai can get 47% of the votes.

So what's going on here ? Do they suddenly come to sense and realize that the momentum of DPP is un-ignorable this time ? How do they explain those polls they did, that Tsai was around 33% ?

Polls by UDN on 2012 President Election
Date	Tsai	Ma	Soong
2011/11/27	35	41	10
2011/12/ 3	32	39	10
2011/12/10	33	40	10
2011/12/12	35	42	10
2011/12/17	33	41	10

This editorial from the UDN seems to bn an admission that:

(1) Blue polls always underestimate green candidates by 10~15% (47-33 = 14%). But this is certainly not new. A famous pro-blue writer Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) said in an article that :

正因為綠色群眾較不表態，懂選舉的人都知道，國民黨要贏，投票前半年，他們必須領先至少15%，投票前3個月至少要領先10%
Because green supporters are more likely not to display their voting behaviors, whoever knows about the election knows that, the KMT must lead by at least 15% and 10%, half year and 3 months before the election, respectively.

See another admission in a video by a TV commentator who is deep-dark-black blue.

(2) Green supporters DO NOT display any stronger willingness to tell the truth in polls than ever, a point what many observers ( example ) claims without support of substantial evidence. In a response to the above article cited, I wrote:

Many people claim that (that the green supporters are more willing to tell the truth in polls this year), but none can provide anything to back that up other than pure speculation. Such speculation most probably came from a sense that the green supporters are higher in moral this year, as seen in new report or TV or any campaign activities.

That sense is correct. However, converting that observation directly into green’s willingness to provide faithful answer during polls conducted by pro-blue media is a serious mistake. Many green netters I saw on forums reported how they intentionally told poll calls that they want to vote for Ma.

The blue poll center knew this very well, too. Here is a paragraph in a recent interview of the vice manager of ChinaTimes poll center, conducted by a journalist (?) from China, posted on 12/27/2012 :

【对我们来说，一般加权之后，绿营会上升，因为考虑到愿意接受中时访问的可能是蓝营较多，绿营的可能直接把电话挂了。

To us (China Times), the green support rate generally will go up after weighting. Because we considered that blue supporters are most probably more willing to take polls conducted by China Times. The green supporters might just hang up the phone.】
访中时民调

Yes they did take that into considerations and make weighting outta it. But, they refused to publicize how much adjustment they made:

【在民调数据之后要进行加权，但是加权数不会公布。
After we took the polls, the data need to be weighted, but we won’t reveal how much we adjusted 】

From all sources, “more pan-green supporters were willing to express their preferences” seems to be nothing but a rumor that many took as a fact.

In the mean time, less than 2 weeks before the voting, the xFuture has been predicting that Tsai lead Ma by 6~ 12% for 4 weeks ...

UDN's Editorial:

選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文

【聯合報╱社論】
2012.01.02 03:10 am

有人說，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，宋楚瑜揚言提告；然而，「選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文」，已是昭然若揭的事實。

這是以數字推演出來的結論。一般的說法是：若以蔡英文的得票率為四十七％當做準據，則馬英九若要贏蔡英文，就至少必須得票四十八％。四十七加四十八，餘下的空間只有百分之五；也就是說，在此一架構下，宋楚瑜的得票若超過百分之五，馬必落選。

此一架構的假設前提是蔡英文得票四十七％。有兩個參考點，可以支持此項假設。一、謝長廷在二○○八得票約四十二％，而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○八的民進黨，此時蔡的聲勢勝二○○八的謝，因此蔡英文的得票至少可從四十二％起跳。二、陳水扁在二○○四年得票五十‧一一％，當年雖有三一九槍擊案影響，但無論如何皆顯示民進黨有得票近五十％的潛力；而此時民進黨的氣勢勝二○○四年，此時的蔡勝二○○四的扁，因此蔡的得票率亦有向五十％趨近的實力。從這兩個參數作出蔡英文得票四十七％的推論，具有說服力。

如前所述，在這個架構下，宋若得票超過五％，馬即落選。那麼，宋的得票會不會有五％呢？答案是有可能。因為，五％就是六十五萬票，若以全國一萬五千個票匭來計算，只要宋楚瑜在每一個票匭開出四十幾票，就能達到那個票數，怎謂沒有可能？

也就是說，宋要拿到五％選票，從統計的常態分布來看，是有可能的（他在二○○六台北市長選舉得票四‧一四％）；反過來說，如果宋楚瑜拿不到五％，則那種選民的表現所透露的對世局國情的深刻成熟思考，才是統計學及社會學上的異態，反而可以令人驚異不置。

此次選舉唯一可以確切預言之事，就是宋楚瑜絕對不會當選。因為，仍以蔡得票四十七％為準據，宋若要當選，須獲四十八％選票，也就是要將馬壓至五％以下；但如今宋的民調在六至七％徘徊，其看好率則在一％以下，甚至有時低至○‧一％。宋之絕對不會當選，是當然與必然之理，亦為宋楚瑜自己心知肚明之事。

此時宋能拉到的選票，絕對大多數應是泛藍的選票。因為，宋標舉的是極統觀點，不可能有泛綠選民把票投給宋；所以，宋拉到的每一張泛藍選票，都會造成使馬落選的壓力，亦將成為使蔡當選的助力。因此，選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文，這個論點可謂理所當然，毫無疑問。

問題在於：宋楚瑜執意倒馬挺蔡，卻陷於自我矛盾之中。宋楚瑜的中心觀點仍在國憲認同與兩岸政策，他公開肯定馬的ＥＣＦＡ是「重大努力」，又公開指蔡之否定九二共識「後果嚴重」；倘若這是宋的真信仰，他卻要拉下「重大努力」的馬，而要拉上「後果嚴重」的蔡，這豈不是自相矛盾？

沒有人比宋楚瑜更知道他絕對不會當選，也很少人比宋楚瑜更知道蔡英文若當選，將在國憲認同及兩岸關係上發生的「嚴重後果」。有人問起「五％生死門」的問題，宋楚瑜說：「重要的不是五％，而是誰能不讓台灣趴下去！」但是，宋楚瑜如今正在做的事，就是要拚命拉下馬英九，將台灣綁在蔡英文的台獨戰車上，親眼目送台灣就這樣趴下去！

宋楚瑜如果有一丁點為國為民的不忍之念，即使他有千般百般的私仇私恨，也沒有理由裹惑五％的選民與他一起去製造「嚴重的後果」，「讓台灣趴下去」。宋楚瑜明明知道他自己是在摧毀國脈傷害台灣，但那些迄今仍支持他的泛藍選民，尚以為是在伸張正義救國家；那些泛藍選民難道知道：宋楚瑜現在要利用他們去做的，其實是等於要他們扶助蔡英文做中華民國總統？

選情緊繃，間不容髮。除非蔡英文可衝破五十％過半選票，或蔡英文的選票低於四十五％；否則，宋楚瑜的得票高低必定是馬英九能否當選的決定性因素。一％十三萬票，莫說五％是生死門，一％都可能決定馬蔡二人的生死。

宋楚瑜必須說明的是，「棄馬保台」難道就是他的救國方略？他說，現在如果不選了，「連人都做不成了」；但當他在一月十四日若與蔡英文共同實現了「棄馬保台」的台獨大業，莫說「人做不成」，當他揹上「汪精衛／吳三桂」的罵名，恐怕另日也無顏見他那為捍衛中華民國而浴血苦戰的亡父宋達於地下了！

非「讚」不可！歡迎加入udn粉絲團，新聞你HOLD住！
【2012/01/02 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/

全文網址: 選宋楚瑜就是選蔡英文 | 社論 | 意見評論 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/OPI1/6818432.shtml#ixzz1iH3HmaUC

Future Market predicts: Ma falls behind by 8% and keeps falling fast

Xfuture, the future market website, claimed to be more accurate than most opinion surveys conducted by media in Taiwan, is conducting surveys in the form of stock exchanges for the upcoming legislative and presidential elections. There are 3 contract groups for the president election. I am sharing the timeline of one of them, The Estimate of Vote Percentage (2012總統選舉投票率預測), for all three candidates: Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文, DPP), Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九, KMT) and James Soong (宋楚瑜, PFP). The data covers the period from 9/1/2011 to 12/2/2011 for both Tsai and Ma. Soong was not included into this contract group until 11/4/11. At the time of preparing this post (12/2), the data show a profile of Tsai : Ma : Soong = 51.0% : 37.1% : 12.5%.

The data is presented in two graphs: first the data only, allowing readers to observe the trends without the interference from my interpretation. The second one includes (1) events that might have marked the major critical changes of winning trend at specific times; (2) a projection of the trend to the election date (1/14/2012), by extrapolating the data of the last 10 days or so, to show the possible outcome if it keeps going with the current trend.

Fig.1. The estimate of vote percentage for the 2012 presidential election. Blue: Tsai Ing-wen (DPP); Red: Ma Ying-jeou (KMT); Brown: James Soong (PFP). Source: Xfuture

Fig.2. Critical Events and Projection. A. around 5% of Ma's supporters changed to Tsai in October, followed by a seemingly non-stop fall on Ma's side. B. Soong was introduced into the competition, which comes with a second wave of Ma's rapid fall; C. The war of persimmons, doubling up the speed of Ma's fall. See details in text. Also, the data in Fig.1. is extrapolated to the election date (1/14/2012) based on the current trend.It shows that Ma could fall behind Soong 10 days before the election, reaching a final percentage profile of Tsai:Soong:Ma = 50%:30%:20% --- if the current trend remains unchanged. Note: right after point C, there's a deep fall of Ma's rate. It was categorized by the Xfuture as intentional manipulation and was corrected back to the normal trend.

The data in this contract group shows that, before October, Tsai and Ma both gained ground with small but steady pace, with Ma leading by about ~10%.

In the mid to end of October, however, significant amount, about 5%, of Ma's supporters switched to Tsai in a very short time (Point A in Fig.2).

What happened in October that might have contributed to this swift change ?

On Tsai's side, she finished campaign tours all over Taiwan with overwhelming support, then heated up the campaign with the Piggie Bank Trio movement, signifying a common people's war against the KMT authority. Both could be seen as an effective way to consolidate green base and potentially brings a positive face to the election.

On Ma's side, he failed to respond to farmers' wish for the Old Farmer Subsidy (OFS). It is a tradition in Taiwan to raise the monthly OFS by NT$ 1,000 in presidential election, a tradition the DPP follows. But, Ma insists that farmers deserve only 316 dollars/month of increase this time.

It went wrong seriously in the beginning. In one of stories reported by a KMT local legislative candidate (note that the legislators will be voted on the same date as the president), when they went to the home of a long-time pro-KMT farmer to deliver the 316.00, the farmer just threw it back at them. Many others told them not to come at all.

Urgent calls like this from local KMT campaign workers were rushed to the headquarter in Taipei, repeatedly, only to meet repeating announcements from Ma's totally-out-of-touch campaign team that 316 is fair and square. It won't help at all when news about Ma's gov spent huge money in unrestrained way in other directions (see below), and raise subsidy to other groups of people who already enjoy much more monetary benefit than farmers did (see here, here and here).

Based on several sources from the KMT side, this arrogant blunder costs Ma somewhere around 3~10% votes. With each 1% equates to about 150,000 votes, Ma lost 450k ~ 1500k votes with this single blunder alone.

But Ma didn't stop there. In the press conference when he formally announced his "Golden 10 year" plan (黃金十年), supposedly to be a campaign-boosting ingredient, he rushed to include his plan of a peace agreement with the the communist China (see Frozen Garlic's comment for why Ma shouldn't have done so). It was a plan that he furiously denied 2 months ago when his campaign manager King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) -- allegedly the real powerful man-behind-the-scene who makes decisions for Ma to follow -- announced the peace talk in a trip to the USA. Besides, it was originally not in Ma's golden 10 years plan -- at least not to anybody's knowledge. Nobody in the entire Blue camp seemed to have any prior knowledge of it -- the KMT heavy heads, the KMT campaigners, the KMT legislators ... until Ma suddenly announced it in that press conference.

Stunned in an unimaginable manner, people from all camps threw in heavy criticism. In response, Ma's office delivered another rushed announcement in the midnight the same day --- that the peace agreement WILL be pre-approved by a referendum. But, in less than 12 hours, Ma followed it with another rushed flip-flop by saying that the referendum is just one of the means to get public opinions on the peace agreement.

Tsai responded with an approach like, "fine, lets get on with the referendum law, then."(my wording) The next Monday, the DPP law makers sent in the proposal to the Legislative Yuan. The KMT rejected it.

Ma's plan of peace agreement was thus finished and moved to the trash in less than 10 days -- along with his supposedly boosting Golden 10 Years Plan. What is left is the deep scars on Ma's image.

All the above events exploded in October, corresponding to the onset of rapid falling seen in the graph presented here. Note that the trend of falling continued, albeit in a slower rate, even before Soong was included in the contract (Point B), which sped up the gap increase between Tsai and Ma.

It was followed by even more catastrophic events (not marked on the graph) on Ma's side along the track, including the humongous spending on a musical "Dreamers" (夢想家) that was staged only twice. The contract was given to a small group of artists who are allegedly close to Ma's wife, and is the same group of people who also took several multi-million art contracts from the government after Ma took power. A large portion of government's budget for artists flow into the hands of the same group of people like fountain water. The money given to Dreamers alone equates to 50% of the yearly funding for artists.

Ma said he ""felt sorry" for how the gov money was spent. Ma's campaign companion, Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), said that he did not know the show had such a high budget and that he regretted the money was spent in that way. However, a pro-KMT commentator revealed that Ma and Wu were actually who approved the spending in a meeting. The guy who "resigned to stop the bleeding", Council for Cultural Affairs Minister Emile Sheng (盛治仁), is but a scapegoat.

With other bad (or good) news like the revelation of Ma's link to a bookie in suspicion of manipulating the election outcome, we went on to the "War of Persimmons" , by which Pro-KMT polls all said that Ma regained the lead after this by as much as 8~10%. But the data shown here (point C) indicated that Ma actually suffered even more.

In review, Ma's fall could be roughly dissected into 3 stages:

1. In October, Tsai gained ground with campaign tours, Piggie Bank Trio, etc, and Ma lost ground with OFS, the peace talk, etc --- contributed by: Tsai, Ma

2. In mid Nov, Ma went down with Soong's entry as well as Ma's Dreamers Musical and his links to bookie --- contributed by: Soong, Ma

3. In end of Nov, Ma went further down after the persimmon price debate --- contributed by: Ma

In summary, the falling of Ma is due to 3 factors: Tsai, Soong, and Ma. Among them, Ma contributed to his own fall in much larger magnitude. That is, Ma is the one who puts his own re-election in jeopardy.

This is something we have to bear in mind, 'cos, if Ma loses, many pro-KMT media, as well as many foreign media that is really foreign, are going to blame Soong for Ma's loss, while in fact Ma's his own worst nightmare.

The extrapolation of the trend presents a possible scenario that Ma's rating could fall behind Soong's in around 10 days before the election, reaching a final result of Tsai:Ma:Soong = 50%:20%:30%. Certainly, if only the trend is kept, which may not be likely.

No matter what, 40 days before the election, there's just no sign that Ma could ever recover from his downfall trend. Seeing how many screwup moves contributed by Ma and his people, Ma might be better off not campaigning at all.


More ref:

See XFuture's own report on the same data set:
未來事件交易所目前對2012年總統選舉預測-蔡英文擴大領先馬英九8%、宋楚瑜上升到12%_20111202 http://nccupm.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/1429/