The participation of two openly gay candidates in the Dec. 1 legislative elections -- one in Taipei and one in Kaohsiung -- prompts reflection on the likely trajectory of representative politics in Taiwan. Not, we hasten to add, that we have any problem over the likelihood of openly gay candidates being elected to the legislature. After all, statistical probability suggests they will only join the couple of dozen gay legislators who are still firmly in the closet.
But once again the question is raised of whether Taiwan needs constitutional reform of its legislative election system.
It is not that we wish to make it harder for openly gay candidates to get elected. But Taiwan's unique combination of multi-member electoral districts and single non-transferable voting displays an increasing tendency toward single-issue radicalism that flies in the face of the kind of consensus-building centralism that is the stuff of modern democratic politics.
In any modern Western-style democracy, radicalism is seen as something that alienates the centrist swing voters who decide elections and therefore is something to be avoided. If this makes for bland legislatures, it also, by and large, keeps unwholesome points of view -- neo-Nazism and Fascism, for example -- out of mainstream political discourse.
Taiwan has an electoral system that does just the opposite. It does this by allowing people to be elected with a very small proportion of the overall vote. In the larger electoral districts it is quite easy to be elected with only 4 percent of the total votes cast. Readers who don't see a problem here should ask themselves what is easier: persuading four people in 10 as to the strength of your candidacy, or four people in 100?
As vote-buying becomes both less effective and more dangerous, people are looking for new ways to get elected. In this situation radicalism works.
Take for example our bete noire, the New Party's Elmer Feng (
The point here is that the ability to get elected by appealing to -- or buying, for that matter -- a very small group is one of the distinguishing features of Taiwan's electoral system. Though only the politically conservative seem to have exploited it so far, the potential for more candidacies appealing not to a broad mass of voters but to a particularly angry minority is huge. Openly gay candidates were obviously the next step.
There is nothing wrong with that. But one has to worry about an electoral system that, if not changed, will over the next decade return an increasing number of legislators elected on minority-issue or special-interest tickets, whose jobs depend far more on their visibly championing those issues from their legislative soapbox than in the often stupendously dull work of passing budgets and reviewing legislation that is a lawmaker's lot. One thing that most people agree on, irrespective of political leaning, is that Taiwan's politics need to become more consensual. Yet the election system will prevent this from happening.
The obvious solution to this is to redraw Taiwan's electoral districts into single member constituencies. Let people win seats who can win a majority of an albeit smaller vote. This will produce a tendency toward middle of the road politics which will facilitate consensus-building. In unity, we are told lies strength. So why perpetuate a system which is likely to result in greater disunity and greater weakness. This is something that Taiwan cannot afford.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS