After being blocked no less than 41 times in the pan-blue dominated Procedure Committee, the long-stalled NT$480 billion (US$14.4 billion) arms procurement bill has finally made it onto the agenda for formal review by the legislature tomorrow.
Appearing extremely exasperated and having suffered what they described as a "surprise attack" (the pan-green members took advantage of their pan-blue counterparts' tardiness by initiating a vote on the bill before most of them had arrived), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party alliance vowed to overturn the bill, with KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Why so much anger from Ma? What great sin have the pan-greens committed by voting to send a bill that aims to enhance the nation's defensive capability for review?
If, as Ma has often claimed, his party supports legitimate self-defense and is against only a "sucker's" arms purchase, then wouldn't the legislative review provide a good opportunity for lawmakers from his party to engage in a rational debate with their pan-green counterparts?
Ma may not be too pleased about it, but tomorrow the public will finally have the chance to see whether the pan-blues are capable of deliberating reasonably over the bill, as opposed to simply stalling it repeatedly in the Procedure Committee.
In making every attempt to pass the arms procurement bill, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has already made several compromises, including cutting the budget from NT$610.8 billion to NT$480 billion, and proposing to pay for the six anti-missile Patriot Advanced Capability-3 batteries from the Ministry of National Defense's regular budget.
The pan-greens are of the opinion that the purchase of the eight conventional submarines, 12 P-3C submarine-hunting aircraft and six batteries of Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems are essential to Taiwan's national defense, and key to maintaining the balance of power with China.
Regardless of whether or not this is the case, the pan-blues' ceaseless rejection of the bill in the Procedure Committee has drawn questions from the public and fueled concern in Washington that Taiwan may, after all, not be serious about its own defense.
Without doubt, the ball is now in Ma's court. The legislative review will provide one and all with an opportunity to see whether Ma is sincere about Taiwan's defense.
To many Douglas Adams fans, the number "42" is endowed with mock-mystical power, as in his novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy it is revealed as the number from which all meaning -- of life, the universe and everything -- can be derived.
While the fact that the DPP succeeded in passing the bill on its 42nd attempt, sadly, is no more than a coincidence, an awful lot -- if not everything -- is at stake, and the public will be watching to see what role the pan-blues choose to play, and asking the question with real meaning: "Who do you stand for?"
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