With the government under acute pressure over a series of gaffes and ill-judged or poorly promoted policies, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been given an excellent opportunity to bounce back from its routing in the presidential and legislative elections.
The question that must be asked, then, is why the DPP has been conspicuous for its restraint if not silence over the last weeks as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) embarks on an epic struggle between party headquarters and its presidential, executive and legislative wings.
DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has a scholastic and dedicated air, but as party leader she will need to develop a more hard-hitting presence if she is to combine party reform with oversight of the government and the KMT in the eyes of voters.
Even if the DPP cannot aim too high so soon in this presidential term, at the least it must seek to influence public discourse and make hay from the regular disruptions in relations between the KMT’s power bases.
Unlike the US, British, Canadian and Australian systems, for example, in which opposition parties have clear-cut leaders in various chambers, Taiwan’s political system allows the opposition party to have many voices but none that is definitive.
With caucus whips acting as party spokespeople but without the authority or mandate of the party chairperson, it can be difficult to get the message across consistently.
For this reason, and despite having pressing responsibilities of party reform, Tsai will need to play a more substantial role in criticizing specific legislation and legislative practices even though she is not a legislator.
The less-than-stellar DPP presence in the legislature makes this even more important.
Legislators Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮), Ko Chien-ming (柯建銘) and Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) may be among the more authoritative opposition members, and they do make an effort to feed the media’s appetite for sound bites, but none has the charisma or general level of public support to act as a clear-cut legislative leader.
The KMT is doing the DPP some real favors, even though the latter is not capitalizing on this. A diffusion of political power across various official and party centers means that individual voices have become less representative and still less authoritative.
The president is an exception; he and the vice president are the only officials directly elected by the nation as a whole. But former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), current Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) are party to a reconfiguring of power in the KMT and the government. Each of these men is ambitious and highly active, but none is serving in a position that has a national mandate — though Wang may argue differently, having been elected by a majority of legislators to run the lawmaking body. One way or another, their various interests are weakening the party’s ability — or at least the public perception of its ability — to function as a team in the service of the country.
A strong opposition voice is a necessary presence in a healthy democracy. The DPP would do well to consider the ramifications of letting the governing party take the lead on criticism of the government’s performance and hog the limelight with its intrigues.
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