Taiwan independence theorist Lin Cho-shui (
Perhaps some people will reduce this dispute to a battle between idealism (Lin I-hsiung) and realism (Lin Cho-shui). Indeed, one important reason why Lin Cho-shui opposes the halving of the legislature is to present a realistic evaluation of its benefits to the DPP. According to Lin Cho-shui, a member of the DPP's outspoken New Tide faction, the legislative downsizing would mean that the DPP would have to win more than 60 percent of the vote to win a majority, which could mean that the DPP would be doomed to remain a minority party.
This is of course the most persuasive reason as far as his legislative comrades are concerned -- who among them would not worry about the effects a reformed electoral system would have on their chances of re-election. However, among the reasons put forward by Lin Cho-shui, the public should pay more attention to deciding which is the more important: implementation of a "single-member district, two-ballot" electoral system, or the halving of the number of legislative seats. Will the downsizing mean that the structure of the legislature will become rigid and that reform will become difficult? The most fundamental questions are what a reasonable number of legislators would be and what would constitute a reasonable division of electoral districts.
This is not a clear-cut battle between idealism and realism. Instrumental-rational or technical-rational analysis could also be applied to resolve the dispute -- wouldn't experts be capable of coming up with the most suitable district size and the most appropriate number of elected representatives of the public? But would these technical issues run counter to the ideal of legislative reform?
Lin I-hsiung's perseverance is understandable. President Chen Shui-bian (
Over the past year or two, not only Lin I-hsiung, but also many civic groups and academics have made known their opinions on legislative reform. Has the DPP paid any heed to these opinions? Why haven't they dealt with some of the technical issues? It seems neither the opposition nor Lin I-hsiung can be blamed for this. Rather, it is the DPP that has felt that they have had another, more important task at hand -- Chen had to be re-elected before the other issues could be dealt with.
The debate about the arms purchase from the US, incited by the anti-military purchase movement, has many similarities to this situation but is more complex. Not all of those who oppose the military budget are unconditionally against war or idealists with a total disregard for reality.
Thinking realistically, cool-headed people will see clearly that an unlimited arms race would destroy the national strength of Taiwan and affect its economic development, social security system and education of the workforce. But only a minuscule minority of the anti-war activists says that it doesn't want any national defense, and no one ignores China's bellicosity.
But what, in the final analysis, is a reasonable military budget? The government has not provided sufficient details: What other peace efforts remain for the two sides of the Taiwan Strait? The government does not say. It just keeps scaring the public, saying that China has upgraded its aircraft, submarines and missiles, and then suddenly comes up with a frightening, astronomical budget. This is unacceptable.
The most complicated part of the military purchase issue is of course the continuing domestic division over national identity. However, an absolute majority of Taiwanese want to maintain the nation's sovereignty, stability and prosperity. With this as a foundation, the government and the public should engage in rational debate, discussing what the price for maintaining our current sovereignty, prosperity and peace will be, and what other solutions there are apart from an arms race. These are issues that the government should have considered beforehand.
Many of the civic groups protesting war have for a long time supported Taiwan consciousness and democratic reforms that were advocated first by the Tangwai (黨外, outside the party) movement and then by the DPP. Unless the government can engage in open communication with these people, yet another Lin I-hsiung might appear, giving the government yet another headache.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.