Of all the political reforms being proposed at the moment, the institution of a presidential or parliamentary system is the one that will have the greatest impact on the future of this country. The nature of party politics is also of crucial
importance to this debate. Will Taiwan move toward a two-party system or a multi-party system? Or could it result in a more fluid situation in which parties sometimes split and sometimes merge, so that there are sometimes two parties and sometimes several?
If we cannot lay down rules for party politics, there will be insufficient resources to accomplish anything at all, regardless of whether we talk about writing a new constitution, founding a new state or the urgent need to establish either a presidential or parliamentary system.
The current situation, in which the political spectrum has been divided into green and blue camps for the convenience of the media, indirectly implies that two-party politics is the ultimate destination. But is this really the case? For the two parties in the green camp, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), there is no chance of a merger.
And talk of a pan-blue merger also seems to be much ado about nothing: The People First Party (PFP) doesn't seem to have the support necessary for a merger, and the New Party is still observing developments. If we include the newly-founded Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NSU), Taiwan's legislature consists of at least six competing political parties; one large, two medium-sized and three smaller parties. This situation will not be changed by the year-end legislative elections, which could result in one large, three medium-sized, and two smaller parties -- no big difference. Although there is a clear division between the green and blue camps, it is still a far cry from two-party politics.
If we persist in viewing the actual political arena in terms of the two-party illusion, we gain no benefit, but might run the risk
of causing harm. Taiwan has become what Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
We could also say that the issues of ethnicity and national identification have no bearing on the fact that Taiwanese politics have become as fierce as they are today. It could even be called a false issue, because the real reason is that social diversity is leading to divergent opinions, and the false two-party political situation is not representative of public opinion. Our society is disposed toward multiparty politics, but the design of the existing system and politicians' manipulations in fact block the possibility of an emergence of multi-party politics.
Using the merger of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the PFP as an example, both parties are in fact thinking of ways to take advantage of each other on some legitimate pretext, but meanwhile have only come up with weak and empty slogans and declarations. The New Party and the PFP split off from the KMT in response to social diversity and the need to guarantee dissenting opinions. The current social
situation has not changed these needs, and there is now even more social diversity. The leaders of the KMT and PFP, however, are working against this trend. It is not very strange that they lost the election, nor is it very strange that they are unable to successfully merge their two parties.
The green camp is more pragmatic. The DPP and TSU both cooperate and compete with each other, and there are mutual counterbalancing mechanisms. Looking at nominations for the year-end legislative elections, the TSU is nominating young candidates
with a positive image intended to replace the DPP's older, unpopular candidates.
Following the DPP's accession to power, the party has already accumulated some baggage. Pan-green voters unable to accept what they consider to be bad government by the DPP, but who are unwilling to vote for the pan-blue camp, can only fall back on voting for the TSU as a counterbalance to the DPP.
If two-party politics is nothing but an illusion, then why should Taiwanese voters place so much hope in that system? What's more, the system makes it difficult for small parties to establish themselves, especially Article 65 of
the Public Officials Election and Recall Law (公職人員選舉罷免法), which regulates the distribution of legislators-at-large and the election of Taiwanese citizens residing overseas. The article stipulates that "any political party receiving less than five percent of the votes cast will not be granted any elected seats, and their votes will not be included in the calculations mentioned in Clause 1." This builds an insurmountable threshold that large parties can use to oppress smaller ones.
By comparison, the recently passed Political Donations Law (政治獻金法) takes a more humane approach to the political party threshold. The part in Article 17 of the law dealing with deductible donations that will not have to be reported contains a section which may create some room for smaller parties. That section says that donations from political parties will not apply to party-nominated candidates who received an average of less than two percent of the vote in that year's legislative election.
Although the two laws serve different functions, this difference in the number of votes required for a party is significant. The Political Donations Law was only passed in March this year, and it follows newer and more relaxed principles.
Should the Public Officials Election and Recall Law take a more benevolent approach and change the threshold? By changing one number, adjusting "5 percent" down to "2 percent," Taiwan could in future enjoy a more diverse political environment. Two percent is in
fact a reasonable figure, since it translates to exactly one seat given current districts and distribution of seats for overseas Taiwanese residents, while 5 percent translates to five seats.
Why not set the definition for the political party threshold at
one seat? Based on the probable number of valid votes -- about
10 million in recent elections --
2 percent would equal 200,000 votes. That is sufficient to give weaker social groups the power they need to grow independently without having to rely on the charity of bigger parties.
The DPP and the TSU should work together to build a diverse Taiwanese society and establish
a superior political position from which they can take the initiative to propose amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Law. They could make
an amendment of this law an outstanding political achievement for green politics. Instead of talking about caring for the weaker
groups or providing seats during elections, it would be better to give the humane concerns regarding this law a merciful and tolerant resolution.
Yang Hsien-hung is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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