When the new format for today's legislative elections was finalized, this newspaper supported it despite anomalies in voter-legislator ratios across counties that give one side -- the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- a distinct advantage.
The change from a near-anarchic system of multiple candidates per district to a single-member system was necessary to increase long-term accountability of legislators to their constituents. In the short term, there were always going to be teething problems, and in this campaign they have been very apparent.
The changes have been condemned in some quarters as increasing the power of legislators and turning electoral districts into corrupt fiefdoms. This criticism ignores the fact that the new legislator-at-large vote ensures that an increased proportion of candidates is elected by party affiliation. A balance of interests between legislators who answer to party headquarters and those who answer to local constituents is a vast improvement over what came before.
The new system was never going to eliminate the pestilence of vote-buying. Commentators who hoped at the time that the entrenched culture of vote captains, factional patronage and illegal surveillance of voting behavior would disappear overnight were naive; in the face of thousands of reports of vote-buying and other mischief, some analysts now seem nostalgic for the old regime, which is absurd.
Aberrant election culture can only be reformed if there is a bipartisan commitment to do so. The KMT, for its part, has spent vast amounts of advertising dollars sabotaging the referendums while ridiculing the Central Election Commission and manipulating election conditions through sympathetic local governments, which suggests that bipartisanship will not be possible anytime soon.
Even by Taiwanese standards, this campaign has been short on policy and long on inept character assassination, laughable melodrama and dubious incidents of "violence." The KMT is highly likely to have an outright majority in the next legislature, and this has forced many candidates to turn the contest into one based on image, charisma, notoriety and slanging matches rather than content and ability.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must get between 40 and 45 of the 113 seats to maintain its current representation; more than 45 would be a big bonus, but a few seats less than 40 would be catastrophic because it would give the KMT an outright two-thirds majority -- or the prospect of forging one with sympathetic minor parties and/or independents.
The KMT would then have the power to effect radical change at the expense of democratic institutions -- and even national security.
The DPP's failure to cut a deal with the Taiwan Solidarity Union will likely lose it one nominally pan-green seat (Chiayi City) and scuttle a number of closer contests elsewhere through a fracturing of the pan-green vote. The KMT is much less likely to suffer from votes leaking to its stablemate, the New Party.
On the referendum questions, a low voter turnout and the KMT boycott will likely invalidate the plebiscite through a failure to reach threshold.
The DPP has failed to make significant inroads into KMT dominance over local politics, and this will be reflected in a district vote that will reward the KMT for its regressive behavior. Of more interest is the new and purely party-based vote for legislators-at-large. This offers a preview of the presidential election and may yet give the DPP and presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
Today should mark the functional demise of President Chen Shui-bian (
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS