Although the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) list of -legislator-at-large nominees has been well received, from the perspective of long-term development toward a more mature democracy, the list raises concerns.
I can’t say it is a bad list, because it is the freshest list the KMT has ever put forward. However, a party’s legislators-at-large differ from political appointees in that their main task is to defend the party’s policies, which means the focus is on their loyalty and contributions to the party.
Some of the nominees do have an image of freshness, but several might have joined the party just to get nominated. Even those who were already KMT members have seldom spoken up for the party.
In liberal, diverse societies, ideas on the direction in which the country should develop naturally differ. The formation of parties allows people with the same views on the nation’s future to strive for the realization of shared political ideals. Thus, in a mature democracy, party politics is a fight over ideals and party members tend to cherish the same ideals.
As such, a party’s -legislator--at-large nominees should be individuals who have fought for the party’s ideals and are able to boost its image. In other words, the ideal legislator-at-large should both be loyal to the party and have a fresh, clean image.
Based on these standards, nominees such as KMT incumbents Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) and Pan Wei-kang (潘維剛) are acceptable. Antai Tian-Sheng Memorial Hospital superintendent Su Ching-chuan’s (蘇清泉) nomination is perhaps the most appropriate, because his hospital serves grassroots voters in pro-green Pingtung County, which surely benefits the KMT’s image.
Loyalty and contributions to the party are even more important than a fresh image, so nominations should be based on party ideals. Thus, the KMT should ideally look for candidates who can add to the party image. Only if not enough talented candidates are found within the party should it start looking elsewhere.
If long-term contributors to the KMT are inferior to people outside the party, then who would defend the party in future? In addition, this might also encourage opportunists.
From this perspective, is there no one among the KMT’s lawmakers that have a fresh image who has been excluded on this occasion? Judging from my long-term involvement in and understanding of the KMT, the party has lost out by not nominating people like legislators Liao Wan-ju (廖婉汝), Chu Fong-chi (朱鳳芝) and Vincent Chang (張顯耀). Their weakness is that they are not “fresh” enough because of their firm political views, but how can it be better for a political party to give priority to rookies with no political experience at all?
New lawmakers have neither political experience nor a strong understanding of party ideology. Won’t they simply become voting machines? Or are they destined to become millstones around the party’s neck when it discovers that the views of rookie legislators contradict those of the party?
Given the public’s longstanding negative impression of politicians, the broad-based praise of the KMT’s nomination list has been notable. However, this is a phenomenon that should simply not exist in a mature democracy.
The fundamental cause of political chaos in Taiwan can be traced back to political parties’ lack of clear and definite ideas and ideals, with many politicians leaning toward whichever side is stronger.
A party that fails to unite its members with ideals and nominate internal talent as -legislators-at-large will perhaps win temporary praise, but that is not necessarily a good sign for the long-term development of Taiwanese democracy.
Lin Huo-wang is a professor in the department of philosophy at National Taiwan University.
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