President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) taking office on May 20 marked a new start for both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). While it is not the first time the DPP has been in power, it is the first time the party has enjoyed a legislative majority at the same time, giving it complete command over the executive and legislative branches of government.
However, from now on, it is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea; it cannot afford to put a foot wrong. The KMT, on the other hand, must learn how to function effectively in opposition, hold the government accountable for its mistakes and get used to not having access to the kind of resources it has become accustomed to.
The DPP cut its teeth in protests at the legislature; the KMT must now observe the democratic process and wait for its next chance to return to government.
In the past, the DPP had to resort to physical scuffles in the streets and ideological scuffles in the legislative chamber.
Until legislative elections were finally allowed in 1992, the “10,000-year legislature” of non-elected lawmakers enjoyed an absolute majority in the national legislature, a virtual carte-blanche to do as they pleased. The DPP’s resorting to brawling earned it attention and sympathy in Taiwan and abroad, and eventually led to political reform.
Although it only had a minority in the legislature, the debate and questioning initiated by the DPP made the ruling party nervous and attracted the attention of the media. The public also started listening. It was in this environment that the DPP matured. Yes, the DPP could be excessively provocative, but this was not without justification. Its actions were legitimate and found a degree of public support.
The KMT can reasonably object to certain aspects of the newly passed Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations (政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例), but for it to ask for 2,000 points to be put to the vote to obstruct the budget for state-owned enterprises was both unwarranted and unprofessional, even if it technically complied with procedure.
This budget was submitted by the previous KMT administration of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his premier, Simon Chang (張善政), and an excessive policy such as this being employed to boycott the budget cannot be justified. It is utterly irresponsible.
So how does the KMT seek to justify its refusal to approve and its delay of the budget? Was it drawn up sloppily? Was it because of the inadequacies of the previous administration? Or was it some kind of retribution for passing legislation to deal with ill-gotten party assets? This is not justifiable opposition, for not only does it fail to highlight the government’s shortfalls, it simply lays bare the unprofessionalism and willful intransigence of the opposition.
The KMT has a wealth of experience in government. If the party was sincere about its responsibilities and rooted out the problems in the budget and clashed with the government because the DPP was trying to rush it through, the public would gladly send midnight snacks to the legislature to support them.
If the KMT continues to resort to moves intended to sabotage the political process, without good reason or public support, then sooner or later its legitimacy will be eroded. With its recent antics, the party is just stirring up trouble. The legislature should be the nation’s foremost forum for discussing thoughts, ideas and values.
Nothing will get solved through exhausting and vexatious squabbling, nor will squabbling enable some form of wider consensus to be formed on the issues of the moment. The KMT should think more carefully about the legitimacy and effectiveness of its opposition strategy. If it does not, it will be a loss for all concerned, but it will be the KMT itself that is damaged most grievously.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing