In a recent opinion poll released by the Taiwan Thinktank, more than 60 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the performance of the legislature. Up to 90 percent argued that legislators should put policy at the top of the political agenda and cease acting from partisan motives. And 88 percent said that legislators need to be "supervised." Based on the results of the survey, we can see that the public wants a legislature which can focus on policy debate and care about people's livelihoods instead of engaging in finger-pointing and partisan disputes.
The legislative elections were last month and legislators-elect have not even been sworn in, yet the public has begun to worry that, with the balance of power pretty much the same, the new legislature will simply repeat the chaos of the previous one. While the People First Party (PFP) only obtained 34 seats, 12 seats shy of the number it acquired in the previous legislative elections, neither the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) nor the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can control the legislature without PFP assistance. Thus, the PFP will be playing a crucial role.
If the KMT is able to maintain its alliance with the PFP in the legislature, they will have 113 seats, but if the PFP joins up with the DPP, they will have 123 seats.
Obviously the nation needs the PFP to play a stabilizing role at this juncture. The PFP can either choose to cooperate with the KMT in its confrontation with the DPP or it can collaborate with the DPP on legislation beneficial to people's livelihoods and national development.
More specifically, the PFP may cover for the KMT's stolen party assets, or else work with the DPP to establish equitable principles of competition. The public is already fed up with confrontations fueled by partisanship. Therefore, decisions made at this crucial moment will have significant consequences for the future.
KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
But let us not forget the fact that the DPP seized 89 seats at these legislative elections, the KMT 79, the PFP 34 and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) 12.
Now, when a government operates under a Cabinet system, the right to form a new Cabinet belongs to the largest party in the legislature, not to the second-largest party. But Taiwan does not have a Cabinet system, and according to the Constitution, the president can appoint the premier without the consent of the Legislative Yuan. Therefore, Chen has the initiative. But faced with this new legislature, he will still need to communicate and negotiate with opposition parties. According to the "winning minimum coalition" theory in politics, because the TSU failed to win enough seats, the PFP has become the party with which the DPP will most likely form an alliance.
There are many examples of coalition governments in other countries. A coalition involves a distribution of ministerial posts and an agreement on policy. Yet some parties choose not to join a coalition Cabinet out of electoral concerns or because they believe they can still exercise influence outside of it. They would rather form an alliance with the ruling party, and might even sign a pact for cooperating on certain issues.
If the PFP is fearful of pressure from pan-blue supporters or is unwilling to be painted as joining a coalition to snare high office, it can choose to sign a pact with the DPP without joining the Cabinet.
It is impossible and unnecessary to ask the PFP and the DPP to see eye-to-eye on national identity. Nor is it necessary. In fact, the problems of national identity and independence are unlikely to be solved in the short term. We will, however, get nowhere if we let these issues drag on and on without reaching a consensus in other areas.
Both sides can call for a long-term truce on the problem of independence. It is unnecessary to ask the DPP to remove the independence clause from its platform because this is, after all, an internal affair of the DPP. It cannot be abolished simply because someone says it should be.
Both sides will face criticism from supporters if a DPP-PFP coalition is formed. Each political party has its own ideals to uphold and supporters to face. But the parties should find common ground as a basis for cooperation instead of proposing a slew of preconditions that would suggest they have little real interest in cooperating.
Unless the PFP is determined to merge with the KMT or become subject to it, it should make it clear that it will go its own way. The people of Taiwan are intelligent enough not to reject the PFP simply because it cooperates with the DPP; in fact, it may lead to more people supporting that party.
The DPP should make sincere gestures instead of spreading rumors in the media about its intention to cooperate with the PFP. If the DPP sincerely hopes to see its policies implemented and to promote economic and other development, seeking a level of cooperation with opposition parties is a must.
Finally, I call on politicians and media professionals to cease petty bickering and to stop dividing the nation. Faced with China's naked ambition of swallowing Taiwan and the prospect of an anti-secession law being enacted, Taiwan cannot sustain this domestic war of attrition between political parties.
Hawang Shiow-duan is a professor of political science at Soochow University and member of the Taipei Society.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS