A copy editor asks: "Why is this National Assembly so often referred to as the `mission oriented' National Assembly?"
The short answer to this question is that in the past the assembly convened once a year whether it had anything on its agenda or not -- and it usually didn't. Its purpose seemed to be to allow a lot of old politicians, many of whom lived in the US, to enjoy an all expenses paid trip back to Taiwan, where they were paid handsomely for listening to a report or two. They usually managed to make this activity last a month. So what makes this assembly "mission oriented" is that it has been convened expressly to accomplish a particular task.
That doesn't mean that previous assemblies didn't accomplish anything. They were super efficient at voting all kinds of perks and pay raises for themselves, to such an extent that the usual adjectival phrase that accompanied the institution's name was "self-fattening." Then there was the "10,000 Year Assembly" which was elected in China in 1948 and sat in Taiwan until 1992, and whose members were known as the "old thieves." They were eventually replaced by a locally elected body so rapacious its members were known as the "young thieves."
All of this goes to explain quite adequately why the assembly that will convene on Monday is also being called the "functional" National Assembly. Others were totally dysfunctional, at least in terms of fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities -- cash cows though they were for their delegates.
This little look at history should explain to the uninitiated just why this country is in such a hurry to get rid of its second chamber. It is almost fitting that the last days of the assembly's existence should be marred by controversy. And it is typical of the current situation in this country that the controversy revolves around a flip-flop by the ruling party, and a veteran democracy activist who doesn't seem to understand the way democracies sometimes work.
There is little point in reiterating former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung's (
It was suggested in the mid-1990s, for example, that the president should have to be elected with a clear majority, necessitating a run off if there were more than two candidates. Such a measure would probably have prevented Chen Shui-bian (
Lin argues that supermajorities are undemocratic. But their point is that they force different sides to negotiate and reach a consensus acceptable to all on very delicate issues. That is not a bad thing.
Since this is the last National Assembly, such arguments are almost moot. But it is hard not to ponder whether more intelligent constitutional reform could have refashioned the assembly in a useful way, rather than simply abolishing it.
There is a crying need for a reduction in ethnic strife and some thought might have been given to creating a body in which representatives of the four main groups could sit in numerical parity -- someone will complain that this is not democratic, but then, in the same sense, neither is the US Senate -- as a monitor of legislation and an arbiter of disputes. Surely something more is needed than the Legislative Yuan.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS