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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS