A mere two weeks into the new legislative session, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus has already given the public and its Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) counterparts a taste of its two-thirds majority in the Legislative Yuan.
On Feb. 27, during the first Procedure Committee meeting, the KMT blocked several bills from advancing to a review in their respective legislative committees. Among them was a draft bill that would require the KMT to return its stolen assets, the Cabinet's request to abolish the Organic Law of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Management Office (
Moreover, despite KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
Then there was the "winner takes all" approach, in which the KMT lawmakers dominated the Legislative Yuan's committee head elections on Monday, winning 15 of the 16 seats in the eight standing committees.
The KMT caucus' aggression even angered its longtime ally, NPSU Legislator Yen Ching-piao (
There was also the brazen demonstration of indifference to conflicts of interest by a number of KMT lawmakers, including Wu Ching-chih (
In view of the ongoing madness in the legislature, who should be held responsible, the KMT or Ma?
It appears that the KMT presidential hopeful has no influence of any sort over his party's lawmakers and is unable to keep them in line. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that he did not even issue a word of condemnation toward these lawmakers' agendas.
With the March 22 presidential election almost upon us, one would think lawmakers would want to be on their best behavior to avoid doing anything that may affect their presidential candidate's electoral prospects. But apparently these lawmakers have no scruples in squandering taxpayer money by placing partisanship and self-interest above the well-being of the nation.
Pity the voters who thought they were doing something positive for the country when they cast their ballots on Jan. 12.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at