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
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS