The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in the process of selecting its legislative candidates via a party primary. Legislative candidates in some districts were able to make dramatic gains during the telephone poll phase, which counts for 70 percent of each hopeful's final "score," prompting the party's Bribery Investigation Subcommittee to investigate.
This turn of events begs the question: Does the DPP's primary system help the party to identify its most competent legislative candidates?
The party's candidates for legislator-at-large seats have also not yet been finalized. DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun will only decide on the four candidates that it is within his power to nominate in the next two months. Recent media reports have mentioned Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮), caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) as likely candidates.
The DPP's regulations for nomination of candidates for public offices from the 1990s included a section that stated quite clearly that every third nominee on the list should be an academic "expert" or a member of a disadvantaged group. This demonstrated the respect the DPP had for outside expertise, as well as their efforts to give a voice to the disadvantaged.
At this point, the DPP's primary has produced a legislator-at-large list that basically reflects the party's internal power struggle. Yu should use the maneuvering room given to him by the system to help redeem the party.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate researcher at Academia Sinica's Institute of Modern History.
Translated by Jason Cox
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS