I cannot agree with some of the sentiments expressed above. I agree that there probably isn’t a conspiracy. Certainly, without persuasive evidence of President Ma’s involvement, it is not a charge to be thrown. Nonetheless, there remains the issue of administrative neutrality of government agencies. State agencies should not be working on behalf of the ruling party to gather election data for them - that’s what the political party’s own machinery is for! A state agency, which is supposed to be neutral, monitoring and analyzing the electorates’ voting intentions on behalf of a political party, should be of some concern to the public, particularly given Taiwan’s own history. Reading the agencies’ own press releases, it does not appear that the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau deny that it did what was alleged. Rather, the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau is trying to justify its actions [See mjib.gov.tw/cgi-bin/Message/ … /MsgCenter].
I also cannot agree with the position that security operations for the candidates are somehow not above scrutiny. The Regulation clearly states that the protection of presidential and vice-presidential candidates are under the overall the jurisdiction of the National Security Bureau ( Section 2 - 總統、副總統候選人 (以下簡稱候選人) 之安全維護工作 (以下簡稱安維工作) ，由國家安全局特種勤務指揮中心 (以下簡稱特勤中心) 統籌). The NSB can (I am reading 並, per translation as: “and or also”) cooperate with (again, I am reading 協同, per translation, as: "to work in coordination with) other security bodies, of which the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau is one but as indicated by the University of Nottingham blog, the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau appeared to have bypassed the normal channel of communication.
Even if there was proper delegation of powers, the Investigation Bureau’s actions still raises the issue of administrative neutrality.
The Ministry justifies the monitoring and analysis of voter intention as follows: "“對於媒體質疑調查員估票的作法是否妥當，在此特別說明，對選舉安全情勢評估是本局長久以來的作法，其最主要的目的在於，如果同選區兩組候選人勢均力敵，則危安狀況發生的機率將遠高於實力懸殊的選區，其危安等級也將隨之提升，因此這是本局工作範圍的一環”
As translated by Google: “For the media questioned the investigators assessed the appropriateness of the practice of voting in this particular note, the security situation on the election assessment is a long-standing practice of the Council, its main purpose is that if two candidates are evenly matched with the constituency, the security risk status occur the probability will be much higher than the strength of the disparity in selection, and its danger level will rise with security, so this is part of the scope of work of this Council.”
I don’t find the Bureau’s explanation persuasive. There are three weaknesses with the Bureau’s explanation. In the first place, there is nothing in the governing Regulation to indicate that monitoring and analyzing the electorates’ voting intention is somehow within the purview of the duties or responsibilities of these agencies. Section 3 of the Regulation, which sets out the duties and responsibilities of the agencies, reads:
安維工作之編組及其任務如下：
一、基本編組：負責候選人人身安維工作。(I read this, per interpretation, as: "Basic Group: Responsible for maintaining Candidate safety)
二、地區編組：協助候選人人身安維工作。(I read this, per interpretation, as: "Area Group: Assist with Candidate safety), and
三、警察機關：負責候選人住居所、蒞臨場所及行進間之安維工作。(I read this, per interpretation, as: "Policing agencies: Responsible for providing safety maintenance to Candidates with respect to their residence, site safety during candidate visits and marches).
I freely admit that I am partisan towards the DPP but I cannot see how, even under the most generous interpretation, that monitoring and analzying electorates’ intended voting behaviour contribute in any meaningful way to the above prescribed duties and responsibilities.
Secondly, the Investigation Bureau’s logic that the risk of violence or danger is greatest in areas where the election are most tightly contested does not comport with past incidents: President Chen was shot in Tainan (not exactly a pan-Blue area) while Lien Chan’s son (campaigning for a pan-Blue candidate) was shot in Taipei County (not exactly a pan-Green area).
Lastly, the Investigation Bureau’s logic is flawed by not considering the obvious - Taiwan is not exactly that big and the very simple fact is that people can and do travel to events and gatherings outside their hometown.
The bureau’s explanation, to me at least, appears to be grasping at straws.
…nothing more - nothing less.
I mean, how