The ongoing battle over proposed revisions to the Organic Law of the Central Election Commission (CEC,
It is understandable that people would be concerned about how members of the CEC, the nation's nominally independent election oversight body, are selected. For a democracy to function, it is necessary for elections to be as reliable and transparent as possible.
This means that the organization must avoid any appearance of partisanship in order to engender public trust in the institution and thereby trust in the outcome of elections in general.
The current system for selecting CEC members is indeed flawed, as it places too much power in the hands of the executive branch. Members are nominated by the premier and appointed by the president.
This gives the ruling party -- whichever party that may be -- complete control over the CEC, a situation which is unsatisfactory and is an anachronism left over from the days of one-party, authoritarian rule.
Now, the KMT has never been happy about the fact that it is not still that one-party, authoritarian ruler of Taiwan. So it has been determined to rewrite the rules that kept it in power for so long, erasing loop-holes until the political system turns out in such a way that the KMT can regain power and keep it for eternity.
Part of this process is to take control of the CEC by institutionalizing partisanship.
Under the KMT's most recent proposal, CEC members would be divided into two categories, with 12 of the commission's members being drawn from lists presented by registered political parties and five being non-party members.
For the first category, the premier will select half from a list of 12 candidates provided by the KMT and the People First Party and half from a list of 12 recommended by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union.
The premier would then choose two of the five "non-party" members from a list of four representatives recommended by the pan-blue camp, another two from the pan-green camp's list of four and one from a list of two candidates provided by the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union.
All 17 appointments would have to be confirmed by the legislature.
This amendment is flawed, as it would entrench the existing legislative makeup -- read KMT majority -- as the basis for the composition of the CEC.
Nevertheless, the system does need to change, but what is required is far more radical -- and much more simple.
In short, CEC members should be appointed by the executive -- in this case, the premier -- and approved by a simple majority in the legislature.
That's it. No complicated formulas about which party gets to do what. Just a basic balance of power between the legislature and the executive.
That is all that is needed to keep things honest at the CEC. The executive and the legislature should be forced by law to find suitable compromises -- that's the whole point of the system in the first place. But the KMT wants parties, not laws, to control the fate of this country.
So which is better: Party control, or rule by law?
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS