On Dec. 11, a fierce campaign by Taiwan's four major political parties for a majority in the Legislative Yuan ended. The popular will spoke thus: Of the 225 seats available, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) garnered 89 seats, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) 79 seats, the People's First Party (PFP) 34 seats, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) 12 seats, the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union six seats, independent candidates four seats, and the New Party one seat.
No single party holds a legislative majority. The DPP is still the biggest party, the KMT the second biggest, the PFP the third and the TSU the fourth.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The decision of the people surpasses all else in importance and must be respected. In the absence of a legislative majority for any single party, the government will have to work with either the third or the fourth-largest party to be able to implement policy. The parties can no longer disobey the public's hope for social stability and a harmonious and joyful nation; cooperation and new alliances are essential.
The distribution of seats in the new legislature is almost identical to that elected in 2001. The ranking of political parties in terms of numbers of seats gained is also unchanged: The DPP gained only two seats and the KMT 11, while the PFP lost 12 and the TSU one. The pan-green and pan-blue camps respectively hold 101 and 114 seats.
The dividing line between the two camps is ideologically based. The pan-green and pan-blue camps have polarized and divided to such an extent that the election was reduced to a battle between two different political ideologies. Democratic countries should not play such a zero-sum game on the basis of political ideology so that there is nothing but rivalry between the pan-green and pan-blue camps. The people of this country should not be distinguished and categorized as either "green" or "blue."
The government and opposition parties must not cling to the Machiavellian mentality and concepts of the past. No political party should subsume the popular will. An authoritarian regime has no concept of popular will, while the party, nationalism and other ideological elements are its tools for exercising political power.
The strategies of the pan-green and pan-blue camps were designed to manipulate the will of the people in furthering the interests of the parties -- namely to hold a majority of the seats in the Legislative Yuan.
Manipulative practices must be abandoned, and political parties must not resemble a "crusade-style dictatorship." Political power should not have to be obtained through vote allocation, vote buying or deception. Those who engage in such practices have little respect for the fundamental principles of a political democracy.
Political democracy is about securing a legislative majority through alliances. The merger of two major political parties will give rise to a system of superficial democracy, which engenders disrespect for the minority. Even more importantly, the diversity of the collective social consciousness may also be injured.
Political democracy is about sharing power and distributing power based on the mandate of the popular will. Power must be accompanied by responsibility. Those in power must promise to strive for a harmonious society in which everyone can enjoy happy and prosperous lives. If a small number of politicians treat the diversified popular will as mere tools of their ambition, this will destroy political democracy.
In this election, both the pan-green and the pan-blue camps made the same mistake -- seeking the support of the popular will to destroy the other camp, thus giving the party priority over the country. They sought to exterminate the competition in a zero-sum game. It must never be forgotten that the power of political regimes derives from the popular will, which is the basis and foundation of political power. Political parties and politicians must never prevail over constitutional government and the legal system.
A closer analysis of this election's problems and the reforms needed to rectify them are the only way to kick-start a campaign of hope for the country. It is a political reality that Taiwan exists independently of China. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the people of Taiwan have elected their own president and legislature. People, territory and sovereignty -- the three requirements for statehood have all been met.
Both the pan-green and pan-blue camps provide some level of consensus supporting this sovereignty. In order to safeguard these precious accomplishments, both camps must carefully scrutinize their roles in this election. There must no longer be Leninist-style political parties in this country. This is the only way in which political democracy can be meaningful to the people of Taiwan.
Voters were less than enthusiastic about voting this time. Less than 59 percent voted, far less than the more than 80 percent in March's presidential election. People have seen for themselves the problems with the legislature -- which has long been deemed by 20 percent or so of voters who are moderate, as well as members of the business and academic sectors, as the root of many problems.
Many people have also realized that party politics in Taiwan has failed to make any constructive contribution to political democracy. "Stop the chaos" -- that is the common hope of everyone.
All political parties must ask themselves this: Taiwan is already an independent sovereign country, so how can China claim that Taiwan is part of it? Some authoritative sources say it isn't that the UN doesn't want to accept Taiwan, but rather that the people of Taiwan are still divided in terms of their national identification.
So the political parties must ask themselves: Why is the voter turnout rate less than 60 percent in this election and why are 20 percent of voters -- the moderates -- so indifferent? What campaign platforms have been pitched during the campaign to interest these voters?
The time has arrived for the parties to reinvent themselves. They should no longer be spearheaded by ideology or party interests. Instead, they must look to the people and find out what the people really want.
One reason that elections in Taiwan are so chaotic is because those running them are often also the umpires. This is the way things were done during the KMT era.
The DPP has followed this model. The president is the president of all the people, so he or she must not also serve as the leader of his or her party. Political parties must be liberated and transformed from being mere election machinery.
President Chen Shui-bian (
Since 2000, and especially during the campaigns for the presidency and the legislature, Taiwan has been subjected to repeated warnings by the US to maintain the "status quo." The US appears to have tactfully conceded to the independent existence of Taiwan outside of China in drafting the Taiwan Relations Act.
The framework for cross-strait peaceful co-existence was established long ago. China cannot use force against Taiwan, and Taiwan cannot unilaterally change the status quo. This is the tacit understanding on which a stable cross-strait relationship relies.
When the Legislative Yuan passed amendments to Articles One, Two, Four, Five and Eight of the Constitution as well as introducing Article 12, a consensus between the pan-blue and pan-green camps that Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are this country's territory was confirmed.
The amendment of the Constitution, unanimously approved by the Legislative Yuan, was a declaration to China that popular will decided that Taiwan was not part of China. Taiwan has existed independently of China for 55 years. Neither China nor the US objected to these amendments. Neither thought that the "status quo" had been changed. Taiwan declared its sovereignty to the world.
The Dec. 11 elections produced a legislature very similar to the one decided in 2001. This demonstrates that the public longs for stability.
For the remainder of his presidency, Chen should follow the spirit of the constitutional amendments approved by the Legislative Yuan to engage in policy implementation, facilitate ethnic harmony and help the KMT correct its black-gold nature, so that KMT lawmakers are able to carry out their government-monitoring duties as the largest opposition party. All political parties should work together and strive for ethnic harmony.
As for the campaign to correct Taiwan's national title and draft a new constitution, this is a job best left for the TSU. The ruling party should meddle no longer. The re-organization of the government must proceed as soon as possible. Efforts must be made to communicate with other countries to show the real face of "one China" -- a face which should exclude Taiwan.
Polls here have shown that while 76 percent of respondents believe they are Taiwanese, only 18 percent believe they are both Taiwanese and Chinese; a mere 4 percent believe they are Chinese. The national identification of Taiwan has been confirmed. The US policy of an ambiguous "one China" must be changed. Since 1949, the PRC has never ruled Taiwan -- neither in law nor in fact.
Lee Chang-kuei is a professor emeritus at National Taiwan University and president of the Taipei Times.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations