The passing of a legislative amendment that restores Cabinet authority over membership of the National Communications Commission (NCC) is good news indeed.
When the NCC formed early last year it became the focus of a power struggle between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-controlled executive and a legislature dominated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Perhaps nostalgic for their traditional control over not only most individual media outlets but also the previous media regulator -- the Government Information Office -- the KMT and its allies put a tremendous amount of time and resources into turning the NCC into an offshoot of the legislature, courtesy of regulations that gave parties the right to appoint NCC members based on their legislative numbers.
But then the pan-blue camp ran into a brick wall when the Council of Grand Justices declared the NCC legislation unconstitutional.
Since then, a grace period has allowed the NCC to continue with its work, which -- sadly but predictably -- included politicized decisions on media ownership.
But the grace period finished at the end of this month, and the legislature was forced to act. With the amendment, the executive will nominate NCC members before the list is approved by the legislature -- together with explicit restrictions on political party membership, which is reasonable.
It is hoped that this reversal will discourage the pan-blue camp from using its legislative majority to prey on and manipulate other government agencies, such as the Central Election Commission.
It might be argued -- as the KMT has done -- that Cabinet appointments influence agencies in a way that is unfair and undemocratic. This is strange reasoning, because a government has the responsibility to shape policies and their execution. And the fact that executive agencies are accountable to the legislature for their actions means that out-and-out bias can be placed on the record and dealt with.
The KMT has a good chance of winning the presidential election in March, and with such a victory would come the same privileges and responsibilities -- including accountability -- that the DPP government has had over the last seven-and-a-half years.
Presumably, at that time, the pan-blue camp would cease complaining of executive bias because the executive would be theirs. And, quite possibly, less able minds in the pan-green camp will take up the role of complaining about unfair executive practices.
The answer, surely, is to develop and defend a system of executive duties that is accountable, transparent and secure enough to withstand attacks based on partisan interests and not out of concern for good governance.
This solution relies heavily on the goodwill and mutual respect of people on both sides of the political divide. Such behavior is in short supply for the moment, but once the fuss over the legislative elections dies down, the presidential candidates will have the chance to address what it is that constitutes good governance -- regardless of which party is in power.
And any candidate that makes light of fundamental questions such as these should be very closely questioned on their presidential ambitions.
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
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,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS