The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus’ decision to resolve the dispute on nominating a candidate for legislative speaker triggered criticism from some, who said that the decision was made in an “opaque” way. However, the decisionmaking process was more like a lesson in democracy than a target for condemnation.
Following the DPP’s victory in both the presidential and legislative elections, its caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘), Legislator Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and legislator-at-large-elect Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全) have shown interest in the speakership.
Many might have believed that the competition within the party would drag on and perhaps turn into a harsh battle among different factions, since the dispute could not be solved when president-elect and DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) intervened by asking Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) to help negotiate a solution at party headquarters on Thursday.
While a vote was planned for the caucus meeting on Friday, Ker, Chen and Su met prior to the meeting, and agreed that Ker and Chen would drop out of the race and throw their support behind Su.
The outcome immediately drew criticism from some political commentators and media outlets, accusing the DPP of making a “black box” decision, while others accused Tsai of breaking her promise to respect the autonomy of the caucus by meddling in the race.
Such criticisms do not make sense — after all, is it not one of the core functions of the democratic system to resolve disputes through negotiation and peaceful means?
Societies have been resolving disputes — including allocation of resources, power and territories — through armed conflicts, resulting in unnecessary loss of human lives.
Similar situations occurred in the history of the DPP as well, with different factions fighting each other more harshly than they would fight the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). As a result, some DPP politicians consider their comrades as sworn enemies, making solidarity within the party merely a slogan.
There is nothing opaque about DPP politicians resolving their differences through negotiation.
It is not known if Su has promised anything to Ker and Chen for dropping out of the race, but there have been such rumors.
However, the essence of the art of negotiation is giving and receiving: No one should be expected to give up something without receiving something else in return.
As for Tsai’s role in the issue, she promised that she would respect the autonomy of the caucus to decide who would be nominated as a candidate for speakership, but did she?
Other than being the president-elect, Tsai is also the DPP chairperson and if the three DPP lawmakers and lawmaker-to-be could not settle their disputes, there is nothing wrong with the party leader getting involved, and, after all, it was Ker, Chen and Su who talked and reached an agreement.
Tsai did not tell them “no, you cannot run” or “yes, you can run.”
It is natural that Tsai would play a role as party chairperson — how could the leader of a political party sit and watch as senior party members fight among each other, especially when the dispute might lead to the party breaking into more factions, especially when unity is needed at a time when Tsai is set to launch her reform projects with assistance from the legislature?
Prior to becoming the DPP chairperson, Tsai was an experienced negotiator, and she — as well as Ker, Chen and Su — has set a very good example on showing how politicians can resolve their differences through peaceful negotiations.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS