Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) has been elected and sworn in, due to the Taiwan’s People’s Party (TPP).
Voting for neither the KMT’s nor the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) contenders, as the TPP did, was an act of voting in itself. The TPP knew what would happen if it cast its ballots that way, and it still did it. Obviously, the TPP supported the KMT and contributed to the result.
None of the three major political parties won a majority in the Legislative Yuan in last month’s elections. The TPP’s eight legislators-at-large took advantage of the speaker’s election to study the KMT and the DPP, asking them about their views on four proposed legislative reforms and to change the legislation’s two-convener system.
The TPP wanted the other two parties’ candidates to show their stances.
In the end, the TPP chose to field its own candidate, TPP Legislator-at-large Vivian Huang (黃珊珊).
“If Huang did not win in the first round, the TPP would not participate in the second,” TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said.
The intention was clear. The message for the DPP was that if it did not want Han to be the legislative speaker, the DPP should vote for Huang. It was clearly coercion, and yet, the TPP said it was the DPP that acted poorly.
The TPP demonstrated how things done in good faith often go unappreciated, it said.
Given the TPP’s logic, party members obviously believe that Huang would be the most suitable legislative speaker, and Han the second. People should ask Ko and his cohorts the following questions:
First, judging from one’s political ideals and careers, what would make Huang a more capable speaker than Han and the DPP’s You Si-kun (游錫堃)?
Second, after Huang lost the first round of voting, the TPP did not vote in the second round and let Han be elected as legislative speaker. What convinced it that Han would be a better speaker than You?
Third, the TPP should clarify its decisionmaking process. When did the party decide to name Huang as its candidate? After the meetings on Wednesday? Was it already decided before the TPP asked the two parties’ speaker candidates to visit its caucus? Was it decided even earlier, right after the legislative elections, when the TPP proposed its four legislative reforms?
If it was decided on Wednesday, the TPP should explain why it did not favor the responses from the KMT and the DPP regarding the four reforms and a single-convener system. Both the blue and green camps deserve an explanation from the TPP.
On the other hand, if Huang’s nomination was already decided much earlier, it proves that the TPP’s proposals of legislative reforms and its moves were simply attempts to attract public attention and increase its leverage.
Ko might believe that politics is a game of smoke and mirrors, and if he does, then so be it. It is always after the tide goes out that it is determined who is swimming naked. Just as the TPP exploited polling before the election, history would show how the TPP fooled people on this occasion.
Due to the tacit agreement between the blue and white camps, Han was elected as legislative speaker. Whether “Speaker Han” will behave in accordance with Taiwan’s national interests will be subject to scrutiny. The TPP and the KMT should take responsibility for such a result. Taiwanese are watching.
Lin Jin-jia is a psychiatrist.
Translated by Emma Liu
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