None of the political parties won more than half of the seats in the recent legislative elections. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), led by President Chen Shui-bian (
For the sake of policy implementation and political stability, since the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) do not enjoy a majority, it is a rational option for the two parties to form a cabinet with either the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the People First Party (PFP).
In most multi-party countries, a "minimal winning coalition" government is usually considered reasonable. Such a coalition only needs partners to give it the smallest margin, keeping its obligations to a minimum. However, for a country that faces a crisis, a coalition government formed by all major parties is often adopted to resolve the crisis together.
Although Taiwan's situation is abnormal, it does not face any immediate crisis at the moment. The problem is that Taiwan has a split national identity and a serious lack of trust between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. Consequently, many people are pessimistic about the possibility of a coalition government formed by the two camps.
The DPP proposed "a great reconciliation era, a grand coalition government" in an attempt to win the legislative speakership by cooperating with other opposition legislators during the so-called "February political reform" in early 1996.
The problem was that the campaign for Taiwan's first direct presidential election was taking place at the time, and the support ratings for the DPP's Peng Ming-min (
The DPP cooperated with the New Party at that time simply to help former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (
Today, no party enjoys an overwhelming majority. Since the DPP came to power, it's more rational for the party to call for reconciliation compared to its move in 1996. Now, PFP Chairman James Soong's worry that the DPP will push for immediate independence and a new constitution doesn't exist at all.
Either a minimal winning or a grand coalition government is a possible direction that deserves consideration. During the decision-making process, the DPP should discuss this with the TSU in order to draw their bottom line for certain personnel appointments and policies. Finally, if the pan-blue camp really ignores reality and names its price recklessly, the DPP will win the public's support even if it forms a cabinet by itself.
The ideal situation would have been for the pan-green camp to win the majority of seats this time, and accomplish the construction of the public's "Taiwan consciousness" step by step. But since the Taiwanese people are not ready for this, we should let the DPP have a greater space to maneuver while saving our judgment for later.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US