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
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS