The end of the year is upon us, and the Legislative Yuan is rushing to clear a backlog of bills. But the work is being hampered by the conflicting interests of political parties and mutual arm-twisting, resulting in legislative gridlock. Legislative Yuan speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday criticized the Executive Yuan for pushing ahead with its plan for expanding public services and creating jobs even before the relevant bills are passed by the legislature. Wang's criticism has further chilled relations between the two branches.
To tackle the 5.22 percent unemployment rate, the Cabinet drafted two bills earlier this month -- one for expanding infrastructure construction and the other for expanding public services and creating jobs. The plan is to float a total NT$70 billion of public debt and create 115,000 jobs. The Cabinet's plan to use the government budget to provide for the livelihoods of unemployed people is well-intentioned. But good motivations do not always mean it is the right course to take.
With the 2004 presidential election drawing near, the Cabinet suddenly appears to have woken up to the gravity of the unemployment situation. Hence the hurried proposals. The timing of the proposals and the Cabinet's flouting of the legislative process have naturally prompted the opposition parties to question the political motivations behind the bills.
The administration's NT$50 billion infrastructure proposal emphasizes job creation, not construction. Without producing a complete infrastructure plan, the Executive Yuan has asked the legislature to approve a carte blanche budget that it can spend at will.
This violates the provisions of budget laws. Besides, while ignoring the existing Employment Security Fund, the Executive Yuan wants another NT$20 billion budget to expand public services. In doing so, the government is simply providing temporary jobs. Essentially, these proposals amount to unemployment relief via deficit spending. Because these are social welfare proposals by nature, the budgets will be gone after they are spent, without generating any returns. No wonder the opposition suspects the proposals were motivated by the 2004 election.
In terms of the legislative process, the Executive Yuan rushed out the two proposals in one month and demanded that the legislature review and pass them in the present session. The problem is that the legislature only has three more sittings left for this session, with next year's annual budget and many other urgent bills waiting for review. Forcing the legislature to pass bills within a limited time frame contravenes legislative precedents and is heavy-handed.
However, despite its many mistakes regarding those two bills, there was one thing right about the Executive Yuan's act, and that was paying attention to the unemployment problem. The government's unemployment registration hotlines have been flooded with phone calls since their inception, showing the gravity of the issue. It will become an all-out social problem if left unattended.
The ruling and opposition parties should not ignore the unemployment problem, but neither should they give up on their job of monitoring the government on account of this. The legislative caucuses of the different political parties should immediately negotiate and put the two bills on the agenda, but they should meanwhile demand a detailed explanation from the Executive Yuan about the two bills. Unemployment relief is not the same as public investment. If the two bills are about social welfare, then there's no need to calculate returns. If they are about infrastructure, the Cabinet must clarify the details, evaluations and estimated returns so that the legislature will be able to review them. After all, no political party or individual should be allowed to waste national resources.
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