Last week, the arms procurement bill was finally put on the legislative agenda after being vetoed 41 times in the Procedure Committee. But on Friday the pan-blue camp halted the legislative session, preventing any discussion of the matter on the floor.
Legislators who oppose the bill should not continue blocking it but allow it to be debated, giving the public a better understanding of the matter. Being on the agenda is different from being passed. It only means that the legislature is able to review the proposal. When it is discussed, the public can attempt to understand both the arms bill's content and scope.
If a consensus cannot be reached after discussion and negotiation, it may still be rejected by the legislature. But in this process, the public will gain a better understanding of Taiwan's defense capacities and needs.
The controversy presently focuses on whether the weapons are being sold for a reasonable price. In fact, the plan is closely connected to the nation's overall defense policy and security strategy. This is not the right time to haggle over prices, because this concerns the nation's defense. The plan grows out of the nation's broad security strategy.
Apart from the debate on the budget, there is also concern over the possible negative impact on Taiwan-US relations if the plan fails. Unfortunately, the core issue -- the nation's strategic and tactical needs -- has been drowned out by the torrent of personal abuse from politicians and the media. As a result, there is an absence of real debate on the issues. This clearly does not help Taiwan's development, and it may prevent the public from becoming better educated about national defense.
The US has for a long time said that it will accept Taiwan's democratic decisions regarding the purchases. But as former deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver pointed out, what the US does not understand is why the legislature will not even put the issue on the agenda for discussion.
If we take a closer look at the plan, its content and items have been amended. Some items have been moved to the regular budget from a special one. The budget has also been reduced significantly. Doesn't even the amended plan deserve legislative consideration?
Several pan-blue-camp leaders claim that it is unnecessary to propose a plan, because the procurement of weapons was vetoed in the referendum held last year on the same day as the presidential vote. It should be remembered, however, that another referendum question was also "vetoed": the establishment of a "peace and stability framework" for cross-strait interaction. According to the pan-blue leaders' logic, the cross-strait talks they promote so actively should also be banned, since the second referendum question also failed to pass.
In which case, the public would be more likely to oppose their trips to China and the ongoing forum between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the communists.
Instead of sticking to such twisted logic, the two referendum questions should be clarified. Last year's vote should not be seen as the end of the issue.
Some oppose the arms procurement plan because they see it as "spendthrift" purchasing. Even if they do not support it, doesn't it deserve a chance for rational discussion in the Legislative Yuan? The boycott is a result of a political confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. But rather than emotional accusations, the public should be allowed to thoroughly examine the plan under the framework of national security.
Lai I-chung is the director of foreign policy studies at Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS