In the final televised presidential debate, the contending parties’ nomination lists for legislators-at-large sparked much discussion. Parties have deliberately nominated figures who have a good public image to help win support and also to attack their opponents. Voters have the right and responsibility to monitor those in government and they welcome competition between parties that helps disadvantaged people and experts in certain subject fields get into the legislature.
However, parties need to be reminded that, although they have nominated these “squeaky clean” people, they also need to make sure that if they are elected, they turn their party’s political views into laws and carry through on major policies.
According to the Central Election Commission, 11 political parties have registered to take part in next month’s legislative and presidential elections. These parties display some common patterns in their nominations.
First, the list of nominations for legislators-at-large is a way of managing what kind of impression the public receives about each party. Nominees from disadvantaged groups and those who have a good social standing are normally placed high up on the “safe list.”
Second, party lists for legislators-at-large also function as a way to foster political talent. For example, the Democratic Progressive Party is using the concept of a “new generation” to signal a changing of the guard.
Third, the at-large nomination lists reflect the personal aspirations and election concerns of the three presidential candidates.
Fourth, the processes by which the parties have drawn up these lists show that they all lack an internal democratic mechanism for doing so. The timing of each party’s nominations shows their varying methods of political calculation, their attempts to pacify internal dissent and the way in which they have sat on the fence and tried to out-wait election variables. They also show that the parties have not yet reached a consensus on what qualifications legislators-at-large should have.
So how should voters go about casting their second vote — the one cast for a party as opposed to a candidate? Hopefully the following suggestions can be of some help for those who want to make a rational decision and avoid voting for certain candidates, but then regretting it later.
First, voters should carefully read the information provided on the election notice sent to them before polling time, including the stated political views of each party, and then think about whether the various parties’ at-large nominees are capable of effectively putting their parties’ political views into action.
Second, voters should consider whether the legislator-at-large nominees are capable of speaking up as representatives of public opinion. In the case of incumbent legislators, people can refer to legislative reports released by Citizen Congress Watch, which will tell them at a glance whether those nominees are worthy and competent candidates for the legislature.
The final point to be made is that smart voters know that even after an election they should not stop monitoring the government.
Keeping an eye on elected leaders is the only way to ensure that democracy is really in the hands of the public, rather than just being a system for handing power over to elected representatives, only for them to become the “masters” of democracy and trample on the rights of their supposed bosses — the public.
Ku Chung-hwa is chairman of Citizen’s Congress Watch.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past