At the risk of being sued by some legislative candidates, the Taipei Society on Tuesday released an evaluation of the performance of the 225 members of the fifth Legislative Yuan in the fourth and fifth terms. Forty-three lawmakers failed the evaluation and 59 are on the probation list. The legislators' poor performance is not unexpected.
Among the four major parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ranked lowest, followed by the People First Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union. The performance of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) lawmakers was rated highest.
Ever since the KMT government relocated to Taiwan from China, our representative bodies have been controlled by "old thieves" or "corrupt courtiers." The "old thieves" included National Assembly members from China who enjoyed a lifetime membership under the KMT's rule. But after former president Lee Teng-hui (
The "old thieves" performed their duties under authoritarian rule while news was censored. Nobody looked into their misconduct, because the media were unable to monitor them. The media were no more than tools of the KMT's authoritarian rule -- rubber stamps to legitimize the party's will. But with the advent of freedom of the press, lawmakers' actions are exposed for public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the quality of their performance has failed to improve. An example is the vulgar language of the foul-mouthed KMT Legislator Yu Yueh-hsia (
Many unsuitable people can still get elected. Does the problem stem from the overall quality of voters? If not, how can these vile legislative candidates still attract votes? The crux of the problem is political parties' degenerate performance. For example, Taipei Society researcher Chang Kuei-mao (
This is the intrinsic problem with the KMT, which relies on an election machine fueled by vote-buying. Its intricate electioneering network operates through regional and clan organizations, which ensures that at least some of its legislators are guaranteed a seat in the legislature. The growth of public understanding is a long process. It is not that the public is ignorant, but simply that voters have to be informed. Fortunately there are a number of social justice groups who are willing to perform this role, setting up monitoring facilities and offering a direction for voters to follow. On Monday, the Taipei Society announced that it had sent questionnaires about six major political issues to 38 legislative candidates, but that only 12 were returned, the majority from DPP candidates. The society said that this cast doubt on the suitability of many legislators to be involved in the political process.
It is fortunate that, in the run-up to the elections, groups such as the Taipei Society and the Northern Taiwan Society have shown their social conscience in releasing such reports. We hope that the people of Taiwan will use their vote to voice their anger at the long-term degeneracy of legislators and direct the country toward the election of upright and capable lawmakers.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with