The next National Assembly will be unprecedented in Taiwan's constitutional politics. The premises are not good: People either only briefly understand the proposed amendments, feel that they don't concern them, or are only vaguely interested.
Nor does the follow-up look better: the Central Election Commission seems unable to provide timely directions and the public shows a total lack of enthusiasm, even with the commission's idea to hold a lottery for those who vote. This is indeed regrettable.
Add to this that each political party has their own secret agenda and are taking a perfunctory approach. The Democratic Action Alliance alone is fighting a quixotic but praiseworthy battle to promote the elections.
The National Assembly will be of historic significance, contrary to the constitutional reform project launched by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
First, the assembly will provide an excellent lesson in constitutional politics. Despite the contradictory statements of the People First Party (PFP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), the proposed amendments dealing with, for example, the single member, two vote electoral system and the halving of the number of legislative seats, are exceedingly clear.
Both sides have already stated their positions clearly. The Democratic Action Alliance, for example, opposes the amendments. Voters can thus take advantage of this election and use it as a referendum. Isn't this what the people of Taiwan have been dreaming about for decades? With such a great opportunity dangling before the public's eyes, can they just let it pass them by?
Second, it is a test of the parties' sincerity when it comes to constitutional reform. The ideals of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have always been diametrically opposed, and this is the first time the two have agreed on something -- both are in favor of the amendments.
Why, then, don't they take this opportunity to cooperate in a democratic debate and competition with the opponents, consisting mainly of academics? If this actually happens, there will be two positive outcomes: first, voters will see a competition between parties of the highest quality, which will set a good example for the future of constitutional politics, and, second, if the KMT and the DPP can cooperate, that will pave the way for cooperation in other areas and turn competition and cooperation between the two into a state of "coopetition." Wouldn't this be in the interests of both Taiwan and the Taiwanese people?
Third, it sets an example for academic staff participating in politics. It should be noted that the greatest significance of the Democratic Action Alliance's participation in this election is that it has proved that the KMT and the DPP must pursue a democratic debate with all the academics that have come out of their ivory towers to participate in the Democratic Action Alliance and debate politics with politicians.
Regardless of the outcome, this will resonate with voters. Through its members, the alliance has also proved that democratically diverse Taiwan has come together over this issue and that it is possible to see beyond political parties and ideology. This can serve as a model for the creation of a future common Taiwan consciousness.
In short, regardless of whether we talk of the proposed constitutional amendments or the participation of different political groups, the issue as a whole rests on previous achievements and will serve as a lesson for the future. But despite the meticulous preparations, we are left with two questions: the sincerity of the two main parties and the participation of the public.
Wu Kun-cai is an assistant professor at the department of history and geography at National Chiayi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath