The first legislative elections using the new voting system are over and, as former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) predicted in 2005, the DPP suffered a crushing loss of seats.
The green camp won 40 percent of the vote, so its support base remained largely stable, but these votes translated into not even a quarter of the legislative seats. If 40 percent of the vote translated into 27 seats, then 1 percent was only worth 0.675 seats. The pan-blue camp won 86 seats with 60 percent of the vote, with 1 percent worth 1.43 seats. When votes for the green camp are worth less than half of those for the blue camp, it's obvious that the voting system is seriously flawed.
After the elections, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) suggested that the Constitution be amended after two years. He said that once the new system had been in place for two years, its efficacy would become clear. By that time, amending the Constitution could also be looked into, as well as other issues, like increasing the number of seats in the legislature, giving every vote the same weight or rearranging the voting districts. Wang also hoped that a future system could be oriented toward improving the parliamentary system, to ensure long-term political stability for the nation.
Alongside this change, the idea of reinstating legislative consent for the appointment of the premier is not as desirable as changing the parliamentary system and doing away with presidential elections. This would not only conserve resources, but also save the country a lot of money. The matter of how to pick a symbolic head of state could be further explored and the position of vice president would no longer be necessary.
Regardless of whether the number of legislative seats is increased, the voting system should be changed into a fully proportional system, with the threshold for parties to win a seat lowered to 3 percent. A proportional system would not only fully reflect the actual support for each party, but would also be in accordance with the democratic principle that each vote should have the same weight.
Furthermore, lowering the threshold would also allow the smaller parties to have their voices heard. Even more importantly, a proportional system would eradicate the much-criticized tradition of vote-buying. For many years, the election that saw the least interference from vote-buying was the National Assembly election in 2005, which was carried out using a fully proportional system.
The task of elected representatives should be concentrated on national issues, instead of spending too much time on local minor issues rather than governing the country. This would significantly improve the quality and professionalism of representatives of all parties in the legislature and ensure that both the country and its government improve their performance.
A parliamentary system based on proportional representation is the same as combining legislative and presidential elections. A party or party alliance that wins more than 50 percent of the vote has the right to control the Cabinet and the right to govern.
The ridiculous outcome of this past legislative election is perhaps a turning point. This could be the moment to seriously reconsider how the country can achieve long-term, peaceful and stable government under a new system. Each party should set aside its own partisan interests and work together for the future of Taiwan.
Kuo Chang-feng is a doctor and a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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