Chen Shui-bian
Under these circumstances, both the KMT and the DPP need to make a certain level of self-adjustment as the inevitable trend for political parties is to become internally created parties (
[An internally created party has its roots in a grouping of parliamentarians who share the same views. The group develops into a political party when it begins to work together in parliament and organize election campaigns. Policy-making power lies largely with the parliamentarians and the party headquarters cannot control the party caucus in parliament.
In contrast, an externally created party is one created by non-parliamentarians -- for purposes other than gaining seats in the parliament. For example, this kind of party may promote an ideology through political movements. In this kind of party, the decision-making power is concentrated at party headquarters, which may even control the party caucus at the parliament.]
For the DPP, the drive toward an internally created party comes from the gap between government power and the responsibilities of a political party. At one point as the new Cabinet was being finalized, Chen said in no unclear terms that his "government for all people" was formed under DPP rule. Therefore, the DPP would take responsibility for the govern-ment's success or failure.
In other words, a grouping with similar interests had taken shape between the DPP headquarters, its legislative caucus and the new government. Therefore, full integration is necessary in both personnel and policy matters. The structure of the DPP's central standing committee has always been a miniature of factional politics within the party -- an epitome of an externally created party.
But after taking power, the DPP will have to transform itself into an internally created party. It must incorporate the party members serving as Cabinet members and legislators -- and therefore responsible for government policy -- into the party's decision-making mechanism. Only then will the government have the endorsement of the entire party, as well as support from the party's legislators. Only then can they take joint responsibility for the outcome of next year's legislative election.
How to ensure a consistency between the party's platform and government policy is another issue in the DPP's transformation. The importance of this issue is reflected in the recent dispute over the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The UK's Conservative Party is an epitome of an internally created party -- with decision-making powers concentrated in the party's bench in parliament as well as in the Cabinet (or shadow Cabinet when in opposition). The policy forum at the party headquarters play the role of a policy researcher. Its function is limited to providing suggestions and analyzing the policies of other parties.
This is an example the DPP can learn from. The party can leave party policies up to the policy-making team of the legislative caucus, where all policies and bills proposed by government agencies should be discussed and integrated before they are sent to the Executive Yuan, which will then draw up a full-fledged bill.
Meanwhile, the policy committee at the party headquarters can be an advisory unit providing policy alternatives. The party headquarters should also be repositioned as a pure administrative unit, just as the Conservative Party's "central office" only handles routine matters such as organization, publicity and arranging contacts.
While the DPP's transformation is an adjustment to power, the KMT's push toward an internally created party comes from a pressure to restructure its internal power following its election defeat. The KMT's erstwhile method of having the party lead the government -- a whip it so effectively used while in power -- is now too long a belt to crack.
Following the marginalization of the National Assembly, the KMT's strongest public mandate lies with its legislators. The party's legislative caucus is the vanguard for monitoring the new government. The party headquarters will therefore have to seriously listen to the high-decibel clamor coming from its legislators.
Issues like allowing Tang to lead the Cabinet and allowing party members to join the Cabinet have to be approved by the party's legislative caucus. Raising the proportion of legislators in the makeup of the party's Central Standing Committee is one trend. Other measures may also include listing the party chairman as its top legislator at-large, having Lien Chan (連戰) attend the party's legislative caucus meetings and even getting the caucus to elect the party chairman.
Noted political scholar Maurice Duverger once said: "An externally created party more or less harbor a bit of vigilance toward its parliamentary caucus. It also pushes the caucus to follow its orders."
The KMT has its roots in a revolutionary movement, while the DPP originated from street demonstrations. This kind of political power, shaped by external factors in extraordinary times, has led to the concentration of power in the party leadership. However, as Taiwan's democracy enters a phase of stabilization, political institutions will also stabilize accordingly and political functions will return to the spirit of the Constitution -- where "the Executive Yuan is answerable to the Legislative Yuan" -- as well as parliamentary politics.
This is the reason why Taiwan's two major political parties both need to become internally created parties.
Shen Fu-hsiung is a DPP legislator.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with