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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS