Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that if his party loses the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections, the Republic of China (ROC) would suffer and peace across the Taiwan Strait would be affected.
When he was asked by the media to elaborate on his remarks, Chu said that his motive for running in the election is that a single party cannot be allowed to have a monopoly of power, as that would lead to a loss of checks and balances, which would not be healthy for the nation’s democracy.
He said he was worried that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would push for its Taiwan independence clause to be included in the ROC Constitution, which he said would damage national interests and endanger cross-strait peace.
What Chu did was little more than an attempt to mislead and intimidate the public. His demeanor is not helpful for the improvement of political accountability, because if the ruling party does not govern the nation well, or if its legislators perform poorly, it can use “checks and balances” as a pretext for not stepping down.
Every time the DPP has a chance of winning an election, the KMT says that the nation would perish if the DPP wins. This is not only detrimental to efforts to consolidate national identity and improve democratic standards, but has caused voters to repeatedly fall into a state of fear about the nation’s survival.
The DPP has won two presidential elections since it was founded in 1986 and it has never won a legislative majority. What kind of damage has the KMT’s monopoly of power done to the nation’s democracy that Chu feels the need to raise the issue of democratic checks and balances?
When the KMT held a monopoly of power, why did it not call for democratic checks and balances to rescue the development of Taiwan’s democracy?
Is it that only the KMT can be allowed to have a monopoly of power and an absolute majority in the legislature? Can it be that it is incapable of doing wrong, but if the DPP or other parties hold more than half the legislative seats they are likely to act recklessly?
If that is the case, the KMT should take advantage of its legislative majority and amend the Constitution to require that the KMT must hold more than half the seats in the Legislative Yuan and that other parties may not, because only then can the nation’s interests and cross-strait peace be guaranteed.
According to Article 12 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, the procedure for amending the Constitution is as follows: “Amendment of the Constitution shall be initiated upon the proposal of one-fourth of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, passed by at least three-fourths of the members present at a meeting attended by at least three-fourths of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, and sanctioned by electors in the free area of the Republic of China at a referendum held upon expiration of a six-month period of public announcement of the proposal, wherein the number of valid votes in favor exceeds one-half of the total number of electors.”
When the Legislative Yuan puts forward a proposal to amend the Constitution, it is an expression of public will. A referendum is a mechanism for imposing checks and balances on any move the legislature might make toward amending the Constitution. This means that even if the DPP obtained a majority in the legislature, it would still not be able to do as it pleases.
The media are always on hand to reflect public opinion and put pressure on political parties.
The leaders of the nation’s main political parties should have a clear understanding of public opinion.
If the DPP was to try and force through certain policies or constitutional amendments that are not in accordance with public opinion, it would be very hard for such proposals to pass through the legislature, and it would also be impossible for them to pass the threshold in a referendum. In such a case, the DPP would most likely suffer a defeat in the subsequent election. Even if a referendum and a future election are too far off to dissuade the DPP, the media and civil groups provide insight to public opinion, restraining the DPP’s efforts to amend the Constitution.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) considered amending the Constitution when he was in power, but how could such a proposal have succeeded without the approval of the main parties, including the KMT, and without public support?
It is also important to note that initiatives for holding referendums have been launched six times, but boycotts by the two biggest parties ensured that none of them succeeded.
Even if the DPP succeeded in getting through the legislature a proposal to amend the Constitution, how could a constitutional amendment bill be approved in a referendum without support from major parties?
Can it be that the KMT leadership is not aware of the public opinion? Or is it that they have no confidence about what might happen if the nation was to vote in a referendum?
It is more likely that they know where public opinion stands and that people believe in a democratic system, but Chu is still using the concept of checks and balances to blur his political accountability and intimidate voters into thinking that they must support the KMT’s presidential and legislative candidates, otherwise the DPP would promote independence policies.
In that case, all that can be said is that the KMT is scraping the bottom of its electoral strategy barrel.
Chu should try to gain voter support by rational means, such as demonstrating the KMT’s “remarkable” political performance during its most recent eight years in government and explaining his “progressive” political views, rather than using scare tactics by talking about democratic checks and balances, and the possible demise of the ROC to persuade voters to give the KMT a chance to remain in power.
In an election campaign, intimidation might be an easy way to mobilize deep-blue supporters, but it would damage the nation’s democratic standards and tear national identity apart, none of which would benefit the nation.
Tung Chen-yuan is a visiting fellow at the University of California, Berkeley.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.