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
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS