The presidential election is only three months away. Yet as of now, only Vice President William Lai (賴清德) has a clear campaign as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate. Other candidates, including Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), as an independent, are still struggling to form an alliance among themselves.
Be it a Hou-Ko, Ko-Hou, Gou-Ko or Ko-Gou ticket, the disagreements between the blue and white camps have adversely affected the presidential election. When the politicians of those two camps negotiate with one another, they rarely address issues regarding national policy. Each of the presidential candidates should have already laid out his political agendas clearly for the voters, but none of these three have done so.
In this sense, did Ko propose a coalition for the greater good or only for his political interests? Would this “coalition” be able to play a role in supervising all political parties, or would it be an excuse for the politicians to blame one another to the detriment of Taiwan?
Since the beginning of his campaign, the agreement that the blue and the white camps have reached is to “oust the DPP” and achieve a transfer of political power. Of course, from the perspective of an opposition party, it is reasonable that these two slogans are used for their campaigns, and it is appropriate for them to do so. Yet when the blue and white camps are using this to gain momentum for their collaboration, they not only show how shallow and impotent they are, but also suggest they only care about their political interests.
First, to put things into context, the KMT is a century-old political party. To obtain power and political control, the KMT would defend politicians related to its own local factions, such as Miaoli County Commissioner Chung Tung-chin (鍾東錦) and KMT Legislator Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁), despite these local politicians often being mired in controversy. On the other hand, the TPP has been branding itself as a new political force, claiming that it would be able to surpass the blue and green camps and offer voters an alternative.
If the KMT and the TPP are to collaborate, the burning question is not about who should be the presidential candidate and who should be his deputy, but how those controversial political figures are to be dealt with.
Second, whenever the blue-white alliance has been discussed, we have seen those politicians attack and criticize one another. After their first meeting, some political agendas in a statement were marked as ideas the TPP was against, indicating that they had no intention of reaching a consensus among themselves.
Moreover, these politicians argued with each other about whether to use polls or a primary to determine who should be the presidential candidate. Each of them wants to employ the means most favorable to himself, and tends to blame others for the failure to form an alliance. Ko even said: “The only thing that the KMT wants to do is to get rid of me.” How could these people really work out something constructive?
Lastly, the blue and white camps are thinking about how to elevate their own status rather than focusing on Taiwan’s future. From the moment both sides started talking about collaboration, neither camp has discussed much about their political agendas and policy. Worse, even before they reach a compromise, they talk about which “position” one should take. For instance, Ko once said that he would not take everything, given that the KMT is still a larger party than the TPP. TVBS political talk show host Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) also said that the KMT should have the right to form the Cabinet, but that the TPP could decide who would head at least five of the ministries. Clearly, what occupies their minds are the official positions and political interests rather than Taiwan’s future.
Governing a country requires a lot of work. Everyone should work together in solidarity to ensure the operation of the government. The opposition party also plays an important role in overseeing the government, and this is especially important for a democratic country’s political system. Yet, an opposition party could indeed harm Taiwan, as demonstrated by the cases of KMT legislators Ma Wen-chun (馬文君) and Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷).
A few years ago, during the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the governing party did not have a legislative majority, and as a result, was unable to pass the defense budget it was seeking. Today, while the negotiation between the blue and white camp is still ongoing, each party has started blaming the other and shirking their duties. It is highly doubtful whether a coalition between them would work. Such a government might become one only capable of shirking responsibilities and constantly running on empty.
Tung Chien-hung is an associate professor at National Chung-Hsing University and president of the Central Taiwan Society.
Translated by Emma Liu
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS