The legislative elections have ensured that the government will continue to struggle to find support from lawmakers. The victorious pan-blue camp has demanded that Deputy Legislative Speaker Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤) be appointed premier. Under the current constitutional system, trying to imitate France's cohabitation government is likely to precipitate a constitutional crisis. To end the political gridlock of the last four years, government and opposition leaders must replace confrontation with communication.
The Constitution states that the premier is a presidential appointment and does not require the consent of the Legislative Yuan. But because Taiwan's constitutional system is similar to France's semi-presidential system, considerations of political strength suggest that the current situation seems to offer an opportunity for a government of cohabitation.
Over the last four years, there were at least three opportunities for a "cohabitation" government to be formed. The first was when President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) first won office in 2000 and appointed Tang Fei (唐飛) as premier, but the pan-blue camp, then enjoying a two-thirds majority, was not enthusiastic. The second was after the last legislative elections in 2001, when the pan-blue camp held onto its majority despite significant losses. The third was after this year's presidential elections, when, despite all of the tension, the pan-blue camp did not demand that Chen relinquish his right to appoint the premier. Having wasted three opportunities to push for cohabitation, the demands of the pan-blue camp at this juncture seem questionable.
If the pan-blue camp attempts to install a premier and push for a vote of no-confidence against the Cabinet, then Chen will dissolve the legislature and call new elections. If the opposition manages to retain a majority in the resulting poll, Chen will be under tremendous pressure to face the political reality and negotiate a blue-camp premier. However, a new election would be deemed a huge waste of time and money. It would be difficult to secure public support for this, and newly elected lawmakers would not be too willing to see another election either. So it's unlikely to happen.
The pan-blue camp has a 13-seat majority over the pan-green camp in the legislature, not counting the 10 independents. Nevertheless, cooperation between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has its own limits, and from what Soong had to say on Sunday -- "the PFP will go its own way, and will not play second fiddle to the KMT; the door to [merger] negotiations with the KMT has already been shut" -- a merger between the two parties is not likely, and even simple cooperation could pose difficulties. Soong's words imply that political boundaries separating the pro-China parties are no longer so clear-cut, and that an era of political maneuvering and realignment is set to begin. If the KMT views PFP support as a given and challenges Chen for the right to choose the premier, they could be making a serious error with troubling consequences.
The people have spoken; what they seek is stability. Political parties should realize that a win-win model of cooperation is mutually beneficial. Chen should bring together leaders from the major parties for a frank exchange of ideas and compromise if necessary to find solutions all can accept. This nation requires stability and harmony, and it is sick to death of destructive political conflict. Everyone should take heed.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS