In a recent opinion poll released by the Taiwan Thinktank, more than 60 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the performance of the legislature. Up to 90 percent argued that legislators should put policy at the top of the political agenda and cease acting from partisan motives. And 88 percent said that legislators need to be "supervised." Based on the results of the survey, we can see that the public wants a legislature which can focus on policy debate and care about people's livelihoods instead of engaging in finger-pointing and partisan disputes.
The legislative elections were last month and legislators-elect have not even been sworn in, yet the public has begun to worry that, with the balance of power pretty much the same, the new legislature will simply repeat the chaos of the previous one. While the People First Party (PFP) only obtained 34 seats, 12 seats shy of the number it acquired in the previous legislative elections, neither the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) nor the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can control the legislature without PFP assistance. Thus, the PFP will be playing a crucial role.
If the KMT is able to maintain its alliance with the PFP in the legislature, they will have 113 seats, but if the PFP joins up with the DPP, they will have 123 seats.
Obviously the nation needs the PFP to play a stabilizing role at this juncture. The PFP can either choose to cooperate with the KMT in its confrontation with the DPP or it can collaborate with the DPP on legislation beneficial to people's livelihoods and national development.
More specifically, the PFP may cover for the KMT's stolen party assets, or else work with the DPP to establish equitable principles of competition. The public is already fed up with confrontations fueled by partisanship. Therefore, decisions made at this crucial moment will have significant consequences for the future.
KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
But let us not forget the fact that the DPP seized 89 seats at these legislative elections, the KMT 79, the PFP 34 and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) 12.
Now, when a government operates under a Cabinet system, the right to form a new Cabinet belongs to the largest party in the legislature, not to the second-largest party. But Taiwan does not have a Cabinet system, and according to the Constitution, the president can appoint the premier without the consent of the Legislative Yuan. Therefore, Chen has the initiative. But faced with this new legislature, he will still need to communicate and negotiate with opposition parties. According to the "winning minimum coalition" theory in politics, because the TSU failed to win enough seats, the PFP has become the party with which the DPP will most likely form an alliance.
There are many examples of coalition governments in other countries. A coalition involves a distribution of ministerial posts and an agreement on policy. Yet some parties choose not to join a coalition Cabinet out of electoral concerns or because they believe they can still exercise influence outside of it. They would rather form an alliance with the ruling party, and might even sign a pact for cooperating on certain issues.
If the PFP is fearful of pressure from pan-blue supporters or is unwilling to be painted as joining a coalition to snare high office, it can choose to sign a pact with the DPP without joining the Cabinet.
It is impossible and unnecessary to ask the PFP and the DPP to see eye-to-eye on national identity. Nor is it necessary. In fact, the problems of national identity and independence are unlikely to be solved in the short term. We will, however, get nowhere if we let these issues drag on and on without reaching a consensus in other areas.
Both sides can call for a long-term truce on the problem of independence. It is unnecessary to ask the DPP to remove the independence clause from its platform because this is, after all, an internal affair of the DPP. It cannot be abolished simply because someone says it should be.
Both sides will face criticism from supporters if a DPP-PFP coalition is formed. Each political party has its own ideals to uphold and supporters to face. But the parties should find common ground as a basis for cooperation instead of proposing a slew of preconditions that would suggest they have little real interest in cooperating.
Unless the PFP is determined to merge with the KMT or become subject to it, it should make it clear that it will go its own way. The people of Taiwan are intelligent enough not to reject the PFP simply because it cooperates with the DPP; in fact, it may lead to more people supporting that party.
The DPP should make sincere gestures instead of spreading rumors in the media about its intention to cooperate with the PFP. If the DPP sincerely hopes to see its policies implemented and to promote economic and other development, seeking a level of cooperation with opposition parties is a must.
Finally, I call on politicians and media professionals to cease petty bickering and to stop dividing the nation. Faced with China's naked ambition of swallowing Taiwan and the prospect of an anti-secession law being enacted, Taiwan cannot sustain this domestic war of attrition between political parties.
Hawang Shiow-duan is a professor of political science at Soochow University and member of the Taipei Society.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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