The elections for the sixth Legislative Yuan have come to a close. It appears that the overall political scene has not changed. The fact that the smaller governing party will be dealing with a larger opposition party remains.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is still the second-largest party in the legislature and the pan-blue camp can maintain its majority if the KMT continues its alliance with the People First Party (PFP). The political climate is still presided over by the same group of politicians, although the situation they find themselves in is slightly different.
Not only will there be changes within the political parties, the relationship between the parties may also change.
After three consecutive losses in the previous elections, the KMT, at the helm of the pan-blue camp, has ended its losing streak, but has not climbed back to its past political dominance.
The pan-blues seized 114 seats and the pan-greens 101 seats in the 225-seat legislature. Compared with the previous legislative elections, the pan-blues lost one seat and the pan-greens gained one seat. The total vote for the pan-greens rose by 2.2 percent, whereas it dropped by 3 percent for the pan-blue camp. As such the pan-blue camp has once again gained a majority in the legislature.
The question now is whether or not Lien Chan (連戰) will finally step down as chairman of the KMT and hand the reins of power to the younger generation. If the victorious Lien becomes so conceited that he decides to cling to his chairmanship, it remains to be seen how he will keep control in the legislature and also over the younger KMT politicians.
More importantly, we do not yet know if the PFP is willing to merge unconditionally with of the KMT with Lien still at the helm. PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) thinks of his party as the third power after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT, adding that the PFP will play the crucial minority role in the competition for the Legislative Yuan speakership.
Thus, it would seem that the KMT and PFP are no longer compatible, and neither is willing to play second fiddle to the other. On the other hand, if the KMT wants to maintain a balancing force to the government, it must rely on the PFP. Inside the PFP rank and file, however, disagreement has risen. Legislators-elect such as Lee Ching-Hua (李慶華), Diane Lee (李慶安) and Chou Hsi-Wei (周錫煒) have called on Soong to make concessions to the issue of merging with the KMT, reflecting tension throughout the party.
The green camp's failure to win a majority is a setback for the Chen administration, but it is not necessarily a setback for the pan-greens.
For the moment, we are sure that Chen's ambitions have not been fulfilled and a host of policy proposals will probably not go through. He has to face up to the reality and plan a whole new strategy.
What Chen has to mull over is how to gain control of the legislature. If he cannot, he has to make sure the legislature will not become a source of political upheaval. The president will have to think outside the box if he is to resolve the friction between the green and blue camps.
The mainstream values of this nation without a doubt have to remain in place. More importantly, the DPP has to stick to its principles.
It is more difficult to accomplish a mission in times of adversity than in favorable circumstances. These are trials for both Chen and the DPP.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly Magazine.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
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
RSS