Last Friday, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) locked horns in a debate organized by the alumni association of their alma mater, Harvard University. Ma proved pretty ineffectual in the debate in the face of Lu's arguments, and the vice president maintained the upper hand throughout. It wasn't until I read Ma's words in the China Times and the United Daily News that I realized how much he was struggling to come up with a reasoned argument, and how inarticulate and unprepared he was. In other words, faced with the vice-president's questions, Ma revealed his true colors.
Talking to the press afterwards, Ma said he believed the reason that the vice president had been well prepared for the debate was that she was soon to take up the reins of the Democratic Progressive Party as its acting chairperson, adding that this was the reason he agreed to participate in this event. This is one of Ma's methods: striking a blow despite having clearly been beaten, suggesting that his opponent betrayed a lack of sportsmanship and that he himself exhibited honor in defeat.
What, really, can the position of chairperson of a political party do for Lu that her status as vice president of the nation cannot? How can being party chairperson compare with the elevated status of vice president? I fear that this might be a case of Ma, himself a party chairman, overblowing his own importance.
But these are just minor points and merely serve to demonstrate Ma's lack of sincerity or substance. However, in this debate, Ma also demonstrated a rather disturbing lack of awareness of constitutional government.
Lu challenged Ma over the presidential nominations for the Control Yuan, pointing out that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had, according to the Constitution, presented the list of nominations to the Legislative Yuan for approval last February. She added that whilst the legislature could express its dissatisfaction with individual names on the list, it could not refuse to review the whole list. This was a serious point which, of course, required the respondent to be sufficiently prepared. Ma, whose position was basically unconstitutional, would always have difficulty responding, but he still should not have tried to evade the issue.
He replied that of the five branches of government, the Judicial Yuan, the Examination Yuan and the Control Yuan should all be run by individuals with expertise and a developed sense of justice, and not by those who sympathize with any one party. Under the current nomination system, he went on, the government can include individuals not known for their moderate politics. The setting of examination questions such as "What are the qualities of a lawyer and national leader?" he said, were a case in point. He finished with a call to increase the ceiling for approval of the Control Yuan nominations to two-thirds. Heavens above, what was he talking about?
Firstly, the judicial, examination and control branches of the government cover different areas. Article 80 of the Constitution says that "Judges shall be impartial" and Article 88 states that "Members of the Examination Yuan shall be non-partisan." Party affiliation is not the issue at all, but rather how these officials carry out their duties. Further, Control Yuan members are a product of the elections and the principle of party conformity coming before individual differences applies here just as it does with the legislature. This is different from the judicial and examination branches, to which it cannot be compared.
Secondly, the Additional Articles of the Constitution have changed the way the five branches operate. Control Yuan members are no longer elected by the public -- they are nominated by the president and approved by the legislature (Article 7). It is therefore unconstitutional for the KMT to refuse to exercise their right to approval and Ma's objections about the nomination of non-moderates not only makes no sense, it also oversteps the mark set by the Constitution: The KMT only has the right of approval, it cannot have a hand in the drawing up of the nominations list. Also, the right to draw up the list of nominations does not lie with the government, as Ma said, but with the president. To raise the ceiling of approval requires a constitutional amendment, which is not impossible, but to use this demand as a way of avoiding the issue of the Control Yuan nominations is no more than an excuse.
It is said that to listen to a gentleman speak is better than 10 years of reading. But in this case, it is difficult even to say "thank you" for this unedifying spectacle.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations