While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has vowed that it will do everything possible to win the presidential election in 2016, former premier Yu Shyi-kun has been advocating a different idea. While winning the presidency is important, winning a majority in the 113-member Legislative Yuan could be even more crucial for safeguarding Taiwan’s sovereignty and prosperity, Yu says, adding that “de facto governance” would not be achieved until the DPP wins a legislative majority.
Yu, the longest-serving premier under the 2000 to 2008 DPP administration, understands to what extent a legislative minority can hamper an administration, as many DPP-initiated bills and proposals were blocked by the majority Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during his tenure, while domestic politics was deadlocked by party ideology. Things have not improved since the KMT returned to power in 2008, enjoying what President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called “total governance,” with the KMT controlling the executive branch and enjoying a dominant majority in the Legislative Yuan. What the public has experienced during the past five years is a rubber-stamp legislature. KMT lawmakers have supported every major controversial policy proposal and piece of legislation including relaxing the ban on US beef imports, the introduction of a capital gains tax on securities transactions, resumed construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市) and, most recently, the cross-strait service trade agreement.
Although the legislators did not always personally support these policies, as most of them speaking in interviews or on political talk shows voiced concerns about or opposition to Ma’s policy ideas, they nonetheless supported these ill-fated policies when the bills were put to a vote in the legislature because they would have been committing political suicide by defying Ma, who doubles as KMT chairman and can decide on future party nominations.
For KMT lawmakers, the objective was not to represent the public’s voice, but to secure their own futures and those of the groups that backed them. As for Ma, he never respected the legislature. Voting along party lines may be common in any given democratic country, but the practice should never be used in such a way as to completely ignore public opinion.
This is why Yu’s proposal makes sense. The former premier said that winning a majority in the legislature would probably be harder than winning the presidential election, and a party that controls only the legislature would have to operate more passively, as it would be unable to take the initiative in formulating policies that enhance livelihoods and national development. The DPP, or an opposition coalition, could safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty, national security and the everyday concerns of the public if it controlled the Legislative Yuan, whereas the KMT seems obsessed with pushing through the cross-strait service trade agreement.
Yu is right. It would be difficult for the DPP to jump from 40 seats to more than 57 in order to gain a legislative majority.
The current electoral system, which was changed from the system of single, non-transferable votes in multi-member districts to the single-district, two votes system in a 2005 constitutional amendment, does not favor those who wish to challenge the incumbents. Nor does it help that the DPP’s rival is the richest political party. If the DPP pursues Yu’s vision, it must do so unwaveringly. If the DPP wins the next presidential election, but is a minority in the legislature, it could be in for a deja vu experience.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would