The big topic surrounding the legislative elections isn't the question of independence or unification, and it has nothing to do with public policy. Instead it's the question of vote allocation by the political parties.
In order to ensure their candidates' chances in all of the constituencies, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has sought to unify votes in any given electoral district. This has had the effect of reducing the gap between the number of votes different party candidates get in one district. Consequently, it will have some impact on the number of seats the party can win. This strategy has been successful for the DPP in the past, and its example may be followed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).
The pan-blue camp has also been tempted to follow suit. But People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
In any other electoral system, a political party would have its own electoral strategy, and the electorate would have their own considerations when choosing which candidate to support. The single nontransferable vote under a multi-member district system for legislative elections -- together with the added variable of the vote allocation system -- is unique to Taiwan. All the behind-the-scenes machinations of party politics, in which each camp uses the question of vote allocation to attack the other side, is confusing the true significance of the legislative elections.
The electorate have no way of knowing what the real policy issues are, or indeed what opinions individual candidates hold. All they can see is the political parties scoring points off each other.
The prerequisite for vote allocation is that voters have a strong adherence to a particular party and that this association transcends their association with any particular candidate. But the statistics of past legislative elections indicate that Taiwanese tend to recognize people rather than parties. Looked at in these terms, the use of vote allocation goes against the principle of selecting the wise and the good for elected office, and the freedom of the electorate to cast their vote as they see fit.
To use votes to the best effect, the parties have mobilized village and ward organizations and party loyalists to "transfer" votes to weaker contenders. They have even gone so far as to make use of "ghost populations" who simply transfer their household registration to necessary areas to reduce the effect of highly popular candidates sucking up all the votes.
This strategy of helping less popular candidates allows some unsuitable people to win through seat allocation, and in the elections, the quality of the candidates is extremely uneven. If some of these candidates manage to win through vote allocation, then the legislature is likely to become nothing more than a slaughterhouse where the benefits of power are carved up and divided.
It is even more unfortunate that given the imperative of winning a majority in the legislature, the opinions and policies of the various parties have been relegated to a secondary role. It is now too late to expect any of the parties to announce a brilliant list of candidates or to put forward a coherent political vision. As we watch the parties dividing up the votes, it looks little different to the "division of the spoils" that has been so much part of Taiwan's past.
Fortunately, the legislature has already written the single district, two vote system into the Constitution. We can hope that when the legislature adopts this system in future elections, vote allocation will become history.
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