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?
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