In their attempts to secure power and influence within the pan-blue camp, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his People First Party (PFP) counterpart James Soong (宋楚瑜) held their second behind-closed-doors meeting last week. They reached a consensus on several controversial post-election issues, including the possibility of the pan-blue camp forming a new Cabinet, the arms procurement package and the confirmation of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Control Yuan nominees.
Under the premise of "respect the institution before policy and personnel," Ma's scheme was to set up a "firewall" to prevent Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) from accepting an alleged offer of the premiership from Chen. By securing support from Soong, Ma attempted to reinforce his position in any talks with the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on a Cabinet reshuffle.
On arms procurement, Ma echoed Soong's stance that the budget was both unreasonable in price and procedure.
Finally, citing the example of the nominations for the National Communications Committee (NCC), the two said the nomination procedure for Control Yuan members should be equally strict and transparent.
The conclusions they have reached are not only politically disgraceful but also constitutionally objectionable.
The preemptive strike on Chen's possible invitation to Wang to head the Cabinet reveals Ma's sense of insecurity, despite his party winning a huge victory in the Dec. 3 elections. Ma's personal rivalry with Wang during the KMT chairmanship election also deepened their mutual distrust.
While Ma is worried that Wang's defection might threaten the KMT's legislative majority, Soong is even more eager to dance to Ma's tune and therefore extend his life in politics. Such cooperation is a classic marriage of convenience.
Though political calculations dominated the Ma-Soong meeting, the elevation of partisan interests over national security has had a detrimental effect on the cross-strait situation.
Soong again stressed the pan-blue's opposition to "cash-for-friends" arms procurement because of the cost, the amount of weapons, the types of weapons and the procedure used. Ma agreed that the government should consider buying other weapons rather than the US arms named in the bill.
Ma and Soong have made two grave mistakes.
First, they failed to offer an explanation for how Taiwan is supposed to cope with China's ballooning military budget and growing arsenal. Ma should also have explained to the public why the weapons plan -- passed by his predecessors when the KMT was in power -- is now politically unacceptable.
Moreover, with China's National People's Congress passing the "Anti-Secession" Law in mid-March and authorizing the People's Liberation Army to use force against Taiwan, how can they justify allowing the nation's self-defense capability to be compromised?
Finally, by citing the nomination procedure for the NCC as a "good model" for the nomination system for Control Yuan committee members, Ma and Soong brazenly infringed upon the president's constitutional powers.
A constitutional amendment will be needed if the pan-blue camp wishes to incorporate the NCC model as the method of selection for Control Yuan members.
The proposal was based largely on political considerations because the pan-blue camp can manipulate the selection of committee members in accordance with their majority in the Legislative Yuan.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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