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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS