The world continues to watch the relations between Taiwan and China, weighing how potential developments may impact on the interests of individual countries. The focus as usual is on the rhetoric emanating from the three most important players -- the US, China and Taiwan. Too often, however, developments are based on how domestic events unfold at home.
The most urgent domestic issue for Taiwan at this time is how to overcome the deadlock in the legislature. If it cannot be overcome soon, it is quite possible that critical issues such as national identity and the management of cross-strait relations, as well as economic and other pending issues, will become even more polarized. For countries that have interests in the region, what Taiwan does under these circumstances, matters.
The results of last year's elections left the pan-green and pan-blue political parties much as they were in the previous administration -- a split government with the pan-greens controlling the executive branch, the pan-blue holding the majority in the legislature, and with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) the dominant pan-green player and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) the stronger within the pan-blue group. The struggle for political power between the two parties will continue, therefore, and indeed the unofficial campaign for the 2008 elections has already begun.
The DPP must find a way to get needed legislation passed, whether it is related to the economy, social welfare, reform or security. So far they have not been very successful. The KMT, on the other hand, has up to now been able to block legislation and in addition gained support from China. But with the exception of last December's legislative poll, the party has not been very successful at winning elections.
We are now half-way through the year. Little has been done to address the many important domestic issues waiting to be passed into law or given the money to implement them. These issues may remain blocked while the two principle parties maneuver for advantage.
The results of the legislative elections seemed to win the KMT some advantages, but shortly thereafter this was reversed, not by the DPP but by China, which passed an "Anti Secession" Law. The DPP's public relations effort to counter this was very successful -- but were soon challenged by the highly publicized visits to China by Taiwan's opposition party leaders. The opposition chose to turn to China, rather than challenge the domestic political parties. This set a very serious precedent for China's increased involvement in Taiwan's domestic affairs. The move did gain some support from Taiwan's business community, however.
This seesaw nature of Taiwan's political debate continued when the National Assembly elections resulted in the DPP's favor, thereby permitting a critical amendment to the Constitution that the ruling party sought. It did not, however, break the deadlock held by the pan-blue majority in the legislature.
Most recently, the KMT, for the first time, used an open party election to select its chairman. Given the party's advantage in Taiwan's media world, the campaign was covered as extensively as a full presidential election. Aside from this, however, the result has a greater meaning.
The two candidates were different "ethnically" (ie, Mainlander and Taiwanese), which may not be as important as many believe, but each also has different constituencies within the party. The question, now that it is over, is will the party hold together, as past internal disputes have led to divisions within the party.
Another hurdle, which both sides will have to cope with, is the downsizing of the legislature from 225 members to 113, and the rearranging of electoral districts. This latter issue is perhaps more difficult for the KMT, as the factions within the party are based more on ideology or ethnicity than the factions within the DPP. The makeup of the opposition, therefore, may be unclear at least until the next legislative elections, but the party objective -- to regain power -- will remain the same.
The DPP will of course have to cope with the differences in the new legislative system as well. It will not be easy, but there is less likelihood that the party will face a split before the next presidential election. The objective for the DPP will remain to overcome the deadlock in the legislature, and to establish the reforms to ensure that the political system will not return to the past.
For the ruling party, there is the hope that the new KMT chairman will be flexible enough to remove the deadlock in the legislature. The chances of this are not very high, however.
Recently, the government has stated that the president intends to make public for the first time a National Security Report later this year. It is meant to be similar to annual reports made public in the US and in Japan. Its purpose in both those countries is to inform the people about security issues the government believes are of importance. For Taiwan it would be especially important in educating the people about the security situation. There has been little interest in the subject, especially among the younger generation.
While academics generally support the idea, the media -- oriented toward the pan-blue ideology -- have been quick to claim the purpose would be to use an opening in the Referendum Law allowing the president to call for a referendum on security issues.
The struggle between the two major political parties in Taiwan during the first half of the year gained worldwide attention. It has not brought a solution to Taiwan's major problem; however, the remainder of the year might help both sides to learn from the first half.
For the DPP, the March 26 demonstration showed that it has the numbers to trump the opposition's filibuster in the legislature by going around it when the people are convinced that's what they want. As for the KMT, using meetings with China in domestic political debates may not do much to convince the people that it is a Taiwanese political party. Maybe a more rational set of rules in debating differences domestically might be useful.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
Life as we know it will probably not come to an end in Japan this weekend, but what if it does? That is the question consuming a disaster-prone country ahead of a widely spread prediction of disaster that one comic book suggests would occur tomorrow. The Future I Saw, a manga by Ryo Tatsuki about her purported ability to see the future in dreams, was first published in 1999. It would have faded into obscurity, but for the mention of a tsunami and the cover that read “Major disaster in March 2011.” Years later, when the most powerful earthquake ever
Chinese intimidation of Taiwan has entered a chilling new phase: bolder, more multifaceted and unconstrained by diplomatic norms. For years, Taiwan has weathered economic coercion, military threats, diplomatic isolation, political interference, espionage and disinformation, but the direct targeting of elected leaders abroad signals an alarming escalation in Beijing’s campaign of hostility. Czech military intelligence recently uncovered a plot that reads like fiction, but is all too real. Chinese diplomats and civil secret service in Prague had planned to ram the motorcade of then-vice president-elect Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) and physically assault her during her visit to the Czech Republic in March last
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
RSS