Premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) challenged the opposition camp to initiate a "no-confidence vote" on his Cabinet, so President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) can dissolve the Sixth Legislative Yuan and call a new election. It would be worthy of a listing in the Guinness Book of World Records if the Cabinet in a democratic country were overthrown by a no-confidence vote pushed by the ruling party itself.
Why have Taiwan's democratic politics declined to this point? In countries with years of experience in party politics, opposition parties are relatively rational. They do not "oppose for the sake of opposing," disregarding the safety and welfare of their nation and its people.
Take for example the disaster caused after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans last month. The White House and the US Congress are competing with each other to provide aid, instead of passing the buck.
What is more interesting is that lawmakers from both parties are now pointing fingers at US President George W. Bush. Why? The answer is very simple: They are responding to public opinion.
In democratic countries in the East, the principle of upholding overall national interests is barely respected due to the traditional feudal culture here. Take for example Japan, which has adopted a Cabinet system. In the past, its political stability relied on the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). But Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently resolutely dissolved parliament, disregarding the opposition of some legislators in his party who opposed the privatization of Japan's postal system. It was a major gamble in the eyes of political observers.
Still, the Japanese people passed this test of their political capacity and wisdom, and made a choice to support Koizumi and his party based on his resolve to implement the reforms.
Looking at the development of party politics in Taiwan since 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has won the presidency twice. The opposition parties, led by their party chairmen, have been unable to accept defeat, and have employed a "scorched earth policy" in the legislature, leaving numerous policies suspended in mid-air.
Meanwhile, the DPP has happily taken this as an excuse for its failure to implement policies. With the dogfight continuing to this day, how can we realize a democratic country's most fundamental principle: party politics with political accountability?
After thinking about this thoroughly, I believe that the problem is a result of bad choices made by voters in the presidential and legislative elections since 2000. Since the people's understanding of democracy has not yet matured to a certain level, whenever the presidency and the legislative majority are held by different political camps, it is impossible for the opposition to participate in politics rationally, making today's chaos seem inevitable.
The voters did not put the legislature in the hands of the opposition camp out of a collective awareness of political balance. They did so because of a tendency to choose individual candidates rather than parties in legislative elections. Candidates' grassroots connections and the practice of vote-buying also have an effect.
In the next legislative elections -- whether they come about because opposition parties initiate a no-confidence vote on Hsieh's Cabinet, or as scheduled in 2007 -- voters should consider supporting candidates who belong to the same party as the president.
Only by doing so can the ideal of party politics and political accountability be realized. If this occurs, the ruling party will not have any excuse to shirk responsibility, and voters can certainly punish it in the next election if it performs poorly.
Andrew Cheng is a researcher in the Institute of Biomedical Sciences at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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