The legislative elections are only two months from now. Voters will choose their candidate, with the districts' needs first in their mind, but given the results of previous legislative elections, the nation's interests may be of greater importance to them.
Over the last eight years some good work has been done. But the list of problems recently named by the president is much greater. Another four years of this and Taiwan would be weakened probably beyond repair.
In the 1990s, the Legislative Yuan changed after changes were made to the Constitution. It gained wide authority in the development of democracy in Taiwan. It is time to change again. The numbers of seats will be halved, the effects of which are difficult to predict. The larger number of districts may well have some influence on the legislature.
In the past, the KMT held the majority, which made it much more knowledgeable in directing its elections -- as did its considerable assets. Times have changed, as have the people and the KMT's budget. That makes the outcome of the elections even more unpredictable.
If, after the next elections, the legislature is still controlled by one party, while the presidency is controlled by another, Taiwan's problems will continue and pressure for democratic change might increase.
If, on the other hand, the Legislative Yuan and the presidency are controlled by the same party, the nation will see either a continued fight to keep its sovereignty or a gradual move toward China.
The media is focusing on the presidential election, not the legislature. That is not unusual in democratic countries. Many countries have legislative and presidential elections at the same time.
Some do not have strong legislatures and focus little on their legislative elections. But considering how wide the differences between the two main parties are, the legislative election is clearly crucial.
The DPP and KMT have three months after the legislative election to campaign for the presidency. The DPP and KMT have party platforms, but neither of them has delivered an election platform. Reaching consensus within a party on an election platform is difficult in any democratic country. Given the strong differences between the nation's two main parties, the voters will need all the information they can get in the next two elections, which will have a clear impact on their future.
The DPP has an election disadvantage of having a lame duck president. Frank Hsieh (
Taiwan is also apparently suffering a lack of urgency in gathering and supporting candidates for the legislative districts. For the DPP, the legislative elections are especially key.
In the KMT, some surprising moves have caught media attention.
The party presented a draft mission statement without any mention of the "one China" policy or the "1992 consensus." Senior party leaders, including presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Media reports, however, claim that many KMT members are concerned that harping on unification is limiting public support for the party.
It makes it abundantly clear that the party hopes for unification with China.
Negative public reactions to this clearly indicate that voters disagree with the KMT's guiding principles.
As the presidential campaigning heats up, relatively little is being done to highlight the significance of the legislature. Both camps recognize that the public must agree on the nation's future, but few people are paying attention.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS