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
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS