During the DPP's Ninth National Congress meeting, President Chen Shui-bian (
At the present time, the DPP has executive power, but it is severely constrained by its lack of legislative power. The DPP has faced frequent and deliberate opposition boycotts. Many policy proposals have therefore become the focus of battles of words between the parties. Bills have often either been approved in a peremptory manner or viciously voted down out of rage. The national budgets were reduced in an irrational manner. All these, together, have become obstacles to policy implemen
tation.
Chen and DPP members therefore hope that the DPP will have an opportunity to lead the legislature, thereby facilitating the implementation of its policies. The DPP is not, however, in a position to win a legislative majority. That is why the president proposes cross-party alliances. Others have gone as far as to call for a joint Cabinet.
While a joint Cabinet is certainly one option to be considered, it is not the only option. In fact as a DPP member or supporter, one should not even broach the subject at this stage. I believe the president simply hopes that the DPP will strengthen cooperation with non-DPP groups. These could include any party. It doesn't matter who takes charge; cooperation is to be encouraged if it helps policy implementation, brings back rationality, and involves individuals holding the same ideals. As for whether the cooperation is to take the form of a joint Cabinet or to remain simply at the inter-party level, that depends. It is not something to be decided in advance.
Inside the DPP, a joint Cabinet remains merely a topic of discussion. Some people outside the party, however, have begun talking about the pre-conditions for a joint Cabinet, and speculating that the DPP's motive is to divide the opposition, when in fact placing too much emphasis on a joint Cabinet will not help the DPP.
One problem with just talk is that voters may think it indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the DPP in its ability to perform well in the elections. Secondly, it would cause DPP members to lose faith in the party. In the end, the DPP would become unable to distinguish itself from other political parties. One-sided wishful thinking by the DPP about a joint Cabinet, therefore, would create a crisis. We should not underestimate the potential damage.
A joint Cabinet can become a reality only when all the parties involved agree on it. The parties have talked about a reconciliation for a long time, yet the standoff remains. No one trusts one another. No one is willing to take a back seat. It is too early, therefore, to even begin talking about a joint Cabinet. Attempts to put together a joint Cabinet right now will only create unnecessary political instability and generate more suspicion among the parties. It is okay to treat the issue as a topic of leisurely discussion, and an option in the future reorganization of the Cabinet.
As for different issue-specific alliances among the parties, we should learn to perceive them as the norm. Last year's presidential election took place in a backdrop with such alliances. If we become too serious about a joint Cabinet, the greater the expectation, the greater the disappointment. It will facilitate neither the government's ability to implement policy nor any reconciliation between the parties.
Yen Chin-fu is a DPP lawmaker.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase