This country's democracy is being thrown to the wolves, and few seem to care very much. Perhaps voters are so jaded and cynical that they believe there is no difference between democracy and autocracy. Or perhaps they are so tired of the lack of professionalism of their elected representatives that they are using apathy as a defense mechanism.
But the fact is that there are people who are actively trying to undermine the constitutional system of government, even as they openly conduct negotiations with a hostile foreign regime. These moves are threatening to undermine this nation's political system and create a state of de facto unification with China.
Such actions would be considered treasonous in most countries, and still the response from the nation's leaders -- with a few exceptions -- has been a mere "We'll take a look and see," while most of the public's response has been, "Will you change the channel?"
On Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) China policy director Chang Jung-kung (張榮恭) said that a Chinese official could be invited to Taiwan to take part in a dialogue between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the KMT. The official, Taiwan Affairs Office Director Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), is no minor functionary -- he is the CCP's No.1 man in charge of Taiwan policy.
Now, it was hardly surprising when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) trolloped off on his Long March to pay obeisance to President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) -- after all, Lien is no great admirer of democracy, having lost virtually every election he's stood in. And if that weren't a striking enough example of the pan-blue alliance's willingness to surrender Taiwan's democracy and squander its sovereignty, then surely the People First Party's cross-strait peace advancement bill is.
Every Taiwanese should have a close look at this piece of legislation. After all, it would write into law that Taiwan is a province of China and that it is not a de facto independent state. Under one of the law's provisions, a person can even go to jail for talking about independence or questioning the "one China" policy.
Aside from the fact that this law would catapult the country back into the Martial Law era, it would also impose the fictional "1992 consensus" on Taiwan. But there is no consensus on how to proceed with China and the question of independence. And because there is no consensus, it is crucial that all debate be carried out in a public forum through democratic means.
The pan-blues' ploy is as obvious as it is dangerous. They are making a "declaration of war by the legislature against the executive," as Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) has said.
Because the pan-blues could not capture the presidency, they are using a slim legislative majority to usurp the powers of the Cabinet. They aim to place the powers of the executive branch into the hands of a parallel body, accountable only to the legislature.
It is to prevent such things from happening that the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" are such vital components of democratic governments. No single group of extremists can be allowed to seize power through legislative legerdemain and impose unexamined policies on a powerless electorate.
By placing executive authority in the hands of the legislature, the pan-blues hope to effect a transfer of actual power, leaving them -- once again -- the unchallengeable rulers of Taiwan, free to reshape policy and law without oversight.
So the question remains. Doesn't this bother anyone?
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry