People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
Casting aside a presidential system in favor of a parliamentary system is now seen by Soong as an opportunity to gain advantage because he believes that the pan-blue superiority in the legislature will allow him to turn defeat into victory.
Is Soong trying to pull a fast one by favoring a parliamentary system? This is the first question.
Putting aside the interminable debate over which system is superior -- will adopting a parliamentary system in fact give an advantage to the pan-blues? This is the second question.
Media reports have suggested that Soong has realized that in the last three direct presidential elections, which have all been winner-takes-all, candidates have been pushed to rash actions in their desperation to win, a problem exacerbated by the lack of judicial and media impartiality. He has described the phenomenon as "Latin Americanization." To counter this, he believes that the only way to resolve the ethnic question and create a stable and peaceful political environment is to adopt a parliamentary system.
This argument is totally incoherent. He has mixed up different issues.
Is this due to a weak intellect or is it the result of focusing on political maneuvering to the exclusion of any proper analysis of the two systems?
In fact, it seems that Soong's only real consideration is expressed in the idea of winner-takes-all. This is because the winner has not been the pan-blues; it is the pan-greens who have taken it all. As a result, the only option left to Soong is to change the rules of the game.
From this it's obvious that the pan-blues have lost all hope of an election victory, and in future elections, the pan-blues will have less and less support, until eventually they have none at all.
Will the pan-blues have an opportunity to revive their fortunes if a parliamentary system is introduced? Or are they overestimating themselves and underestimating their opponents?
In this year's presidential election, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and PFP believed that by working together they could achieve a "second transfer of power." This turned out to be little more than a pipe dream.
The will of the people is not the property of any one party and cannot be held hostage. The 60 percent of the vote obtained by Soong and KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) in the 2000 elections is not their property, and their belief that "one plus one is greater than two" is pure myth.
Having said this, even if a parliamentary system is adopted, the pan-blues might not be able to get rid of their opposition status. The point is the will of the people; it has nothing to do with the system.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
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