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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US