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
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