Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Wen-chung (
However, the clause had long been rendered moot by the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" (
The PFP and the DPP have fundamental differences -- the biggest being the national identity issue. While the PFP embraces the ideology that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are under the so-called "one China roof" -- which is very much like the "one China" principle, the DPP rejects the "one China" principle.
Due to this difference, the PFP has taken extreme caution in considering the possibility of working with the DPP. In particular, it fears a backlash from its supporters, whom most consider to be a more conservative and radical segment of the pan-blue camp.
However, in view of the enormous public pressure for inter-party cooperation, the DPP has been actively trying to explore the possibility of an alliance with the PFP, and the PFP is also giving it some serious thought. Lacking a legislative majority, this is a necessary step for the DPP to avoid repeating the problems of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) first term, during which policy implementation was made virtually impossible due to the boycott in the legislature.
Despite their differences, this does not mean there is no room for DPP-PFP cooperation. After all, political parties are supposed to have different political ideals and ideologies. Political diversity is precisely the point of a multi-party democracy. Nevertheless, political parties can still work together to the extent that there is overlap between their ideals and ideologies.
Therefore, although the DPP and PFP diverge on the issue of "one China" principle, they can still cooperate on other issues. Legislations dealing with domestic issues and interests would be a good starting point for the two parties to build some critically needed mutual trust.
As for the independence clause of the DPP's party platform, it should not serve as a grounds for the PFP's to refuse to work with the DPP. After all, according to the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," which was approved in 1999, the DPP acknowledges that the name of this country is the "Republic of China." Moreover, the DPP has also subsequently passed a resolution indicating that all resolutions approved by the party, including the "Resolution on Taiwan' Future," shall have the same force as the party platform. More specifically, former DPP chairman Frank Hsieh (
Many members of the DPP have advocated rectifying the name of the country to "Taiwan." However, until that is accomplished, ROC is still the name of this country, a fact that the DPP has not denied. To the PFP, which vows to defend the ROC until the end, the existence of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" should no longer give it grounds to refuse cooperation with the DPP on the account on the DPP platform.
Finally, a political party is the convergence of a group of people based on their political ideals and ideologies. While changing circumstances and times may prompt modification to those ideals and ideologies, members of the party must nevertheless embrace these ideals and ideologies sincerely.
In the present case, changing the platform easily give the impression of selling out one's ideals.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS