When reforms related to his attempts to privatize Japan Post met with insuperable opposition, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi decided to dissolve parliament and call for new elections. The result was a victory for his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which now holds a majority.
Last month, when Koizumi dissolved parliament, many media commentators did not fancy his chances, and some even believed that his political career was at an end.
When Koizumi took office in May 2001, he did so on a platform of breaking up Japan's factional politics, and to defeat one of the LDP's power brokers, Ryutaro Hashimoto. He continued to oppose the closed-door decision-making of factional politics.
Although Koizumi is an opponent of back-room dealing, this does not mean he does not appreciate the importance of negotiation. What differentiates Koizumi from the other faction leaders is that he appreciates the importance of negotiating with the general public. He invariably brings major policy decisions before the people, analyzing the pros and cons and generally communicating with the people in such a way as to win their support. This is exactly what he did last month. The lawmakers were too scared to take on the reform of Japan Post so Koizumi took it directly to the people.
In this country, many of the actions of both the government and the opposition have been disappointing. The arms-procurement bill and the flood-control budget are issues of national importance, yet they are blindly opposed by the pan-blue camp.
The government scolds the pan-blue camp but it doesn't really try to communicate with the public or give the people a full understanding of how important these issues are in order to win support for its position. Naturally, the legislature is not there just to reflect public opinion, but neither is it simply a mouthpiece for the political parties.
The intention here is not simply to praise Koizumi for his political acuity, but to hold him up as an example for the interaction between Taiwan's government, opposition parties and the legislature. To put it another way, in the face of major policy controversies, the government should put the pros and cons of its position before the people. The opposition should do the same. It would then be up to the public to make the final decision.
Another aspect of Koizumi's actions worth emulating is his brave perseverance on the idea of reform and his refusal to bow down in the face opposition. This is something that members of the government and opposition alike can learn from. In recent years, our parties and politicians have sacrificed their reformist ideals for for their own personal goals or to win allies. The result is that the public has lost all faith in calls for reform.
In February 2001, then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and the party pledged to pursue reform. But at the same time they decided to drop the Chung Hsing bills financial scandal (involving People First Party [PFP] Chairman James Soong [宋楚瑜]), in which there were clear indications of fraud. When the people saw such blatant hypocrisy, how could they believe in Lien's reform plans?
In February of this year, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) called for reform. But after Chen issued a joint statement with Soong, who opposes reform, people began to doubt the president's commitment. And despite the joint statement, Soong continued in his opposition to the arms-procurement bill.
When Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) took over as premier, he promoted reconciliation, coexistence and "one China" under the Constitution. This kind of compromise at the expense of reform has clearly shown that calls for reform are simply smoke and mirrors.
If the government cannot show real determination in the pursuit of reform, then it is likely to fail. And if we add the machinations of the opposition and the maneuvering of the legislature, any attempts at reform are likely to come to nothing. If the government uses the pan-blue camp boycott as an excuse for not carrying through reform, then we might doubt the need for the government to exist at all.
Taiwan's political system is different from that of Japan, and the pan-blue camp has been able to block the legislative process without actually calling for a no-confidence vote. It is unlikely that the legislature will be dissolved. The political impasse will simply continue. As a consequence, the real masters of the nation can only stand on the sidelines.
Koizumi's victory reflects the strength of the Japanese people's desire for reform. The Taiwanese people want reform just as much. If the political parties do not show their concern for the nation and allow a vote on the special arms and the flood-prevention budgets, then these questions might have to be put to a referendum.
While Koizumi is able to rejoice in his victory, Taiwan's political parties should realize that they continue to ignore the people at their peril.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
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
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
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