Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) name is a byword for mendacity and for economy with the truth, so we can only expect him to give the run-around to any hard questions about the borough-wardens election he postponed for six months.
Last Thursday, 68 borough wardens petitioned the Control Yuan to impeach Ma over these shenanigans. They claimed that Ma said he had delayed the elections, which should have taken place last June 8, until Jan. 8 because Taipei was undergoing a redistricting of its boroughs. But the real reason, they say, was because Ma wanted to make sure that his trusty team of vote captains remained in place throughout his own re-election campaign for the vote on Dec. 7.
It has to be said that a part of the wardens' argument is shaky. On the one hand they argue that the postponement was unnecessary because, in the end, the wardens' districts were little changed; on the other hand, they argue that that changes that were made were done to establish more KMT-controlled boroughs at the expense of the DPP. But if there were great benefits to be gained from redistricting, why not do it before the election, if the old districting scheme was so advantageous, why go thorough with the redistricting at all?
Contradictory as the DPP wardens' case might be, it does not remove the fact that Ma has to answer for why the elections were postponed. What right does the mayor of Taipei claim to be able to reset national election dates?
It's a simple question which Ma has conspicuously failed to answer -- why didn't the election go ahead in June using the old districting. It was not imperative that this set of borough-warden elections be conducted using the new districts. Nobody would have said that Ma was trampling on democracy had Taipei residents waited another four years before being able to vote for wardens according to the new district makeup.
So, once again, why did Ma insist that the elections be postponed? And when the Cabinet ordered Ma, as was its right, to hold the elections at the appropriate time, what right did he think he had to flout this instruction?
It is quite plain that Ma's request for a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices was a delaying tactic. It is also interesting to note that the council, as usual, failed to give any clear instruction. We cannot but help wonder whether the council is more interested in hedging its bets politically -- better not annoy the KMT too much in case it is back in power 18 months from now -- than giving clear interpretation of constitutional law. "No fault" judgements are becoming a hallmark of this body -- for example the shirking of responsibility that accompanied the council's judgement on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant fiasco.
The issue now lies in the hands of the Control Yuan and we await developments with interest. But why was it the wardens themselves who took the case to the Control Yuan? Surely that should be the Cabinet's responsibility. Or is it that, now Ma has successfully pulled off his maneuver, the Cabinet has lost interest? It certainly shouldn't have.
The case for Ma's impeachment is quite plain to anyone reasonably well-informed on this case. Good heavens, one only has to think from basic principles -- elections are not something you postpone for any reason short of war, unless you either want to show your contempt for and jeopardize the foundations of democracy.
How Ma and his cronies would squeal if the central government said a month before the next presidential election that it was going to be postponed while a new voter's register was compiled, or for some other dubious reason. Does Ma really want to open this Pandora's box?
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