The elections for the sixth Legislative Yuan have come to a close. It appears that the overall political scene has not changed. The fact that the smaller governing party will be dealing with a larger opposition party remains.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is still the second-largest party in the legislature and the pan-blue camp can maintain its majority if the KMT continues its alliance with the People First Party (PFP). The political climate is still presided over by the same group of politicians, although the situation they find themselves in is slightly different.
Not only will there be changes within the political parties, the relationship between the parties may also change.
After three consecutive losses in the previous elections, the KMT, at the helm of the pan-blue camp, has ended its losing streak, but has not climbed back to its past political dominance.
The pan-blues seized 114 seats and the pan-greens 101 seats in the 225-seat legislature. Compared with the previous legislative elections, the pan-blues lost one seat and the pan-greens gained one seat. The total vote for the pan-greens rose by 2.2 percent, whereas it dropped by 3 percent for the pan-blue camp. As such the pan-blue camp has once again gained a majority in the legislature.
The question now is whether or not Lien Chan (連戰) will finally step down as chairman of the KMT and hand the reins of power to the younger generation. If the victorious Lien becomes so conceited that he decides to cling to his chairmanship, it remains to be seen how he will keep control in the legislature and also over the younger KMT politicians.
More importantly, we do not yet know if the PFP is willing to merge unconditionally with of the KMT with Lien still at the helm. PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) thinks of his party as the third power after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT, adding that the PFP will play the crucial minority role in the competition for the Legislative Yuan speakership.
Thus, it would seem that the KMT and PFP are no longer compatible, and neither is willing to play second fiddle to the other. On the other hand, if the KMT wants to maintain a balancing force to the government, it must rely on the PFP. Inside the PFP rank and file, however, disagreement has risen. Legislators-elect such as Lee Ching-Hua (李慶華), Diane Lee (李慶安) and Chou Hsi-Wei (周錫煒) have called on Soong to make concessions to the issue of merging with the KMT, reflecting tension throughout the party.
The green camp's failure to win a majority is a setback for the Chen administration, but it is not necessarily a setback for the pan-greens.
For the moment, we are sure that Chen's ambitions have not been fulfilled and a host of policy proposals will probably not go through. He has to face up to the reality and plan a whole new strategy.
What Chen has to mull over is how to gain control of the legislature. If he cannot, he has to make sure the legislature will not become a source of political upheaval. The president will have to think outside the box if he is to resolve the friction between the green and blue camps.
The mainstream values of this nation without a doubt have to remain in place. More importantly, the DPP has to stick to its principles.
It is more difficult to accomplish a mission in times of adversity than in favorable circumstances. These are trials for both Chen and the DPP.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly Magazine.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers