There is a certain amusing irony in KMT Legislator Chang Shou Wen (張碩文) being battered with a mobile phone in the middle of a debate on -- of all things -- the national communications bill. What next? A Monty Python farce where lawmakers slap each other with fish or pelt each other with rotten fruit over the farming and fisheries bills?
At least, this would be amusing if it weren't for the fact that this clown-like behavior is scrutinized by the international community at a time when Taiwan's image is at its most fragile, and support for Taiwan's valid and vital bid for sovereignty is at a low ebb.
As Michael Turton pointed out (Letters, Oct. 12, page 8), a long-term strategy of the pan-blues is to make Taiwan appear ungovernable and incapable of running its own affairs.
One of their tactics to this end is to ensure that any democratic debate degenerates into an impasse or, better still, disorder. All lawmakers who engaged in violence on Tuesday were guilty of disgraceful conduct, regardless of their political hue, but for the DPP to allow themselves to even become involved seems to be a stunning own goal.
The finger-pointing by both sides over who actually started Tuesday's incident is reminiscent of playground fisticuffs and not worthy of discussion or coverage. Violence was pre-meditated by lawmakers on all sides. Reports on Monday in the media stated that the KMT had suggested that their members come "combat ready" in "karate suits," while PFP members turned up in military uniforms.
The DPP recommended "loose fitting clothing and sneakers." Though the DPP's sartorial advice for parliament is slightly less silly than martial-arts outfits and a good deal less sinister than army fatigues, their choice of attire was nevertheless intended as preparedness for Tuesday's scuffles.
In the face of provocation by the pan-blues, it would be better for the DPP to require that its members maintain dignity and uphold elementary democratic principles, instead of urging them to come to parliament ready for a dust-up.
Some from all sides of the debate may think that a Punch and Judy-style legislature holds some bizarre entertainment value for the electorate, diverting attention from the far more pedestrian issue of actually pushing through tangible reforms.
But the real danger of allowing violence to play any part in democratic deliberation is that when consensus is achieved at the end of a baseball bat, or the barrel of a gun, this is only turning Taiwan into a classic example of a "failed state."
It is often claimed that Taiwan is a youthful democracy undergoing a transformation into maturity. Tuesday's incidents give ammunition to Taiwan's enemies, who charge that the development of the Taiwan's democracy appears to have been arrested at the kindergarten stage.
Presenting such an image to an already indifferent international community can only hasten the day when China appears on the scene and makes Taiwan stand in the corner with a pointy hat on. And then everybody will be very sorry indeed.
Gareth Price
Taipei
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath