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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers