A legislator revealed that there were cracks in supporting pillars along elevated sections the High Speed Railway and that rebars were exposed, suggesting that concrete was skimmed during construction. This is a matter of public safety as well as a matter of quality control in commissioned public construction projects, and we should be grateful for legislators acting as the eyes, ears and voice of the general public.
But, unable to detach himself from the Taiwanese myth of the committee as a cure-all, that same legislator then went on to propose a solution demanding that the Cabinet immediately invite experts on structural and electrical engineering to participate in a "Taiwan High Speed Railway supervisory and acceptance inspection committee," intended to maintain strict supervisory control over construction quality.
So, just as in the past with politically motivated requests for the establishment of committees, we see politicians running wild with this idea.
If we become possessed with the myth of the committee as panacea, the constant obstruction of one government department by another will be a relatively small matter. But no one will be able to laugh away the effects of the myth once it has spread to every function of the public sector, leading to missed international opportunities.
Citing the far-reaching effects of the profusion of domestic problems on communications, information and media-related issues, the Cabinet and the Legislative Yuan are pressing for the establishment of a cure-all "national communications and media committee." The committee would appropriate all and any crucial issues in the communications industry first without taking into consideration technological convergence, cross-industry impact, competitive models, universal access, content standards and other issues related to regulation of industry.
They aim to use this committee to basically "shoot first and aim later." It would seem that the arbitrary application of any solution available to deal with an urgent problem is deemed preferable to finding out who are the stakeholders.
Let's set aside the issues of the number of committees and their political missions and the booty-sharing between party factions, all full of unprofessional or fake "experts" whose "expertise" is unrelated to the committee's duties and unable to get the the heart of the problem, or who, especially when politically appointed, are too quick to abide by established policies.
Taking into consideration the modern rationalist concept of "respect for expertise," we begin to realize how this rule-by-committee problem plays itself out.
This respect for expertise is often allowed to get to the point where academia adopts the approach known in political circles as "the omniscience of high officials."
The spirit of professionalism, which lies at the heart of the respect for expertise, gets reduced to the equivalent of inviting the most popular academic or asking some well-respected person to endorse policy when that expert is really in no position to make decisions on the issue at hand.
The concept of respect for expertise depends on professionals undertaking comprehensive and deep expert analysis of strictly defined and delimited issues, but they also must answer to expert criticism following the high standards set by their own specialized associations.
Political problems such as the direction of national development and other major public policies should not be the exclusive territory of so-called experts because they are often chosen because of who they know and not what they know.
There are other stakeholders that may end up having a better grasp of the issue at hand, even though they would not normally be labeled "experts." The regular procedures of democracy and the rule of law should not be superceded by committees of experts that muscle out regular citizens who are also entitled to participate in the construction of Taiwan's future.
Howard Shyr is a professor in the Institute of Financial and Economic Law at National Dong Hwa University.
translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers