Taiwan's post-election political landscape would have been moving toward reconciliation if both the DPP and the opposition could compete with each other on the basis of policy. Regretfully, most politicians have failed to incorporate a strategy of gentle persuasion into their frequent political contests. Instead, some opposition leaders still put their parties' interests above the interests of the general public.
The Cabinet-led campaign to override the the Law Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法), passed by the KMT-led alliance in the waning hours of the previous legislature's final session, illustrated the urgency of better ways for the ruling and the opposition parties -- as well as the executive and legislative branches -- to negotiate.
Despite the fact that the executive branch won the budget fight, the side effects remain worrying, because it displayed the nation's ongoing political immaturity.
We have learned from the fight that political bickering and petty accusations remain a central element in Taiwan's political culture.
What ever happened to rational debate? What ever can the public expect to learn from the kind of debate that takes place in today's Taiwan? And what impact will the present political climate, characterized by petty political struggle, have on the consolidation of democracy in this country?
The good news is that the Cabinet, led by Premier Yu Shyi-kun, deserves great credit for being able to engage in a campaign of allying with the secondary enemy to fight against the chief enemy. Since the opposition needs to secure at least half of the legislative seats, all the Cabinet had to do is to attract a few independently-minded legislators from the opposition or independent camp.
In addition to that, the key to the Cabinet's victory to defend its revenue allocation proposition lies in its ability to effectively negotiate. The power to negotiate entails not only the ability to persuade and to trade but also the tactics to win public support through effectively explaining your position.
In this regard, there is plenty of room for improvement.
Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration has learned a great lesson from its first year of governance. Experience gleaned from everything from the change in premier and the controversial handling of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant to the partial reshuffling of the Cabinet contributed to the new thinking involved with its recent dealings with the opposition alliance.
A political leader should take the temperature and monitor the pulse of the times in which he lives. With humility, he must tailor his style of advocacy to his findings in this regard. He need not mute his desire for change or modify his ideas, but he must make sure his style matches the public mood.
A smart political leader in Taiwan should realize that the national mood has changed.
Exhausted by partisan dis-putes and extremism over the so-called unification-independence dichotomy, the country wants its politicians to get together and compromise on their differences.
Based on such strategic thinking, Chen and his Cabinet successfully made use of the national craving for party reconciliation and forged a new model for future partisan interaction.
In terms of bridging partisan differences and pursuing reconciliation with the opposition, Chen and his Cabinet should continue the strategy of gentle persuasion and bargaining to search for common ground on key policy issues.
Chen should keep in mind that a politician does not only need public support to win elections; he needs it to govern. An elected executive -- whether a president, governor or mayor -- needs a popular majority every day of his term.
A politician needs to maintain a permanent campaign to keep his majority together. Keeping a majority does not mean abandoning principle. It means caring enough about how you explain yourself to get the nation behind you. When presidents take bold steps and don't explain them properly, they aren't doing their job.
The power to negotiate determines whether Chen should be aggressive or conciliatory in pushing forward major policies. Should he lash out boldly with new approaches and positions, or focus instead on incremental change? Is it time to run up the flag and charge, or to mediate differences and seek to move the consensus by stages?
Chen did a good job by displaying a low-key and humble manner after the election. To win greater support, Chen and his Cabinet should build up mechanisms to coordinate policy making and implementation. Those mechanisms should include the strengthening of the functions of the congressional liaison office, the improve-ment of cooperation with other opposition groups and individuals based on any specific agenda and most importantly, the exercise of more patience and skill in the process of negotiation.
Presidential personality is another key element. Will they admit a mistake? Will they fight the good fight? Are they willing to take risks for the greater good? Are they able to find a balance between political maneuvering, public support and the power to negotiate?
To sum up, a president does not develop his strategic relationship without understanding what his opposition is going to do in response, or what their own ideas are in forging their own game plan for a particular time. Those are the lessons that Chen must learn next if he is to maintain better relations with the legislature.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS