With only eight legislative seats, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) is by some distance the smallest of the three parties in the new legislature, but as no party has a majority, the other two looked to it for support to guarantee victory in yesterday’s election for legislative speaker.
On Wednesday, the TPP performed a sleight of hand, announcing during a news conference that it would field its own candidate, TPP Legislator-at-large Vivian Huang (黃珊珊), and bring the party whip down hard on any member who voted against her. If she did not win in the first round, it would instruct its members not to participate in the second.
This essentially ensured the election of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) without casting a single vote for either Han or the incumbent speaker, You Si-kun (游錫堃) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Han was declared the winner in the second round of voting. It would be wonderful to be able to say that the best candidate won — but he did not.
DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) had predicted on Wednesday, following the TPP’s news conference, that this would be the result, telling reporters: “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know how things are going to pan out.”
After Jan. 13’s presidential and legislative elections, the KMT emerged as the largest single party in the legislature. All is fair in politics, love and war, and to the winner go the spoils. However, it is important to be clear on who should be the real winner in yesterday’s election.
The KMT got what it wanted, gaining the edge in setting the agenda, and which legislation passes and fails, despite being frustrated in its attempt to secure the presidency.
Han certainly got what he wanted, being gifted a major, influential constitutional role on the back of his support among a niche, deep-blue section of the electorate that fell so hard for his populist rhetoric five years ago that it continues to disregard his clownish ways, moral superficiality, half-baked policy proposals and proven unsuitability for elected office.
By promising him the nomination for the speakership, the KMT chose to pander to this support, despite Han’s rejection by the wider electorate: In 2020, he was recalled as Kaohsiung mayor and routed in the presidential election, before going off into the political wilderness to lick his wounds.
The TPP also got what it wanted, and TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) has once again shown his cynical hand in manipulating the situation so that the party that received the fewest votes in the presidential election got to decide who became legislative speaker.
The Chinese Communist Party got what it wanted, too, as a consolation prize following its disappointment in president-elect William Lai’s (賴清德) victory.
The DPP did not get what it wanted, nor did Lai, both of whom would have a difficult time in the next four years with Han as speaker. Han has essentially said he would use the speakership as a gavel with which to beat the DPP about the head.
The political machinations should not matter, as the legislative speaker should be non-partisan and neutral, but that is the elephant in the room: There is not even a pretense of a promise of neutrality.
It is possible that Han would surprise his detractors and perform his role in a manner the position and the responsibility demand, with a steady, neutral and just hand. The jury is still out on whether he is capable of doing so.
The real winner should be Taiwan, Taiwanese and their hard-fought democracy. Not individual parties. Certainly not individuals. And absolutely not external powers.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then