Buddhist Master Miao-Tien (妙天) and Hon Hai Precision Industry founder Terry Gou (郭台銘) are supporting legislative candidates in several districts across Taiwan, while Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) Taiwan People’s Party is hoping to win some at-large seats. The question voters should ask is: Why?
If they are not deliberately trying to make trouble, then they are doing it to satisfy their desire for power. More seriously, they might even have been directed by China to obstruct the development of Taiwan’s freedom and democracy.
Surely Taiwanese voters must pay careful attention to what these men are doing.
If the party of an incumbent president and their administration also controls a legislative majority, that is what political science calls a “unified government.”
In the world’s mature democratic countries, such as the US and the UK, it is easy for people to hold the administration accountable when a “unified government” has been formed.
On the other hand, if the leader of a government and its legislature or parliament — or, in Taiwan’s case, the legislative majority — belong to two different parties or if the government is a coalition created through negotiations between several parties, the result is what is called a “divided government.”
The consequences of a divided government are that administrative efficiency is rather poor and that voters do not know who should be held responsible.
Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) eight years in office from 2000 to 2008 was a typical example of such a divided government. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party and the New Party relentlessly attacked Chen and his administration during his term.
Who should voters blame for the administration’s poor performance under these circumstances?
However, former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), between 1996 and 2000, and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), between 2008 and 2016, each enjoyed a unified government under KMT leadership. Regardless of whether their performance was good or bad, at least voters knew exactly who to hold accountable.
In 2016, the Democratic Progressive Party was finally able to form a unified government for the first time in its history. Retired military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers might think the election of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was a disaster following her government’s decision to cut their pensions. However, young people might interpret the pension cuts as an effective prescription that could help relieve Taiwan’s financial difficulties.
No matter what the view, whether voters want to praise or blame Tsai, at least their target is clear — just like the situation was during Lee’s and Ma’s terms.
From this perspective, looking at those who — whatever their reasons might be — are trying to promote “third force” legislative candidates around Taiwan, it really is not possible to see how they are going to benefit the nation’s political situation if it is not simply for the sake of growing their own power.
Even more seriously, if these people are willing to be used by Beijing and take advantage of our democracy in an effort to sabotage it, voters would be “setting the wolf to tend the sheep” should they decided to vote for the candidates that this “third force” supports.
Hsueh Yun-feng is a freelance writer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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