We have seen a lot of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), as have legislators.
They have been grappling with it, and each other as a result, throughout the seventh Legislative Yuan session. So much so that the process has spilled over into a post-recess special legislative session, meeting the same fate as the amendments to the Local Government Act (地方制度法), which had been passed in the previous session earlier this year. So once again, we have the spectacle of legislators from both parties reduced to scrapping in the nation’s legislature playing on our TV screens, yet more ammunition for the foreign press to use to gawk in wonder at what passes for politics in Taiwan.
Legislators on both sides seem to view parliament as a battlefield on which to wage their political warfare. Far be it for them to actually engage in rational political debate in the interests of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. We would not, I think, be overly remiss in wishing they would conduct themselves in a way more suited to the spirit of democracy. Nor, I feel, could we blame ourselves for having strong reservations about how the special legislative sessions have been handled. A glaring example of this was the session carried out in the absence of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators after they walked out last month. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took advantage of the empty seats, seizing the opportunity to unilaterally rush through a number of controversial laws in a clear show of their disdain for the democratic process. It’s quite depressing, really.
The fact is that these sessions should only be called under special circumstances or in emergencies. According to Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution, the legislature is to meet for two sessions every year and special sessions can only be called for two reasons — the first when the president seeks a consultative session; the second when a quarter or more legislators agree to it. In the entire history of constitutional government in Taiwan, there have only been 13 occasions on which a special session has been called. The first was in 1951, followed by another the next year, and then there were the politically tumultuous years between 2000 and 2008, when the DPP was in power. This period saw no less than eight sessions. That leaves three for the recent seventh session, with another slated for this month. This is a record number of special sessions.
In our capacity as monitors to the legislature, it falls on us to ask: Who gave legislators the right to drag their heels during normal sessions just so they can abuse special sessions to play catch-up? The legislature is playing with fire here, risking the whole edifice of constitutional government going up in flames. One wrong move and we could have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Even though the KMT allowed the existence of the Young China Party and the China Democratic Socialist Party, both minor, legally recognized political parties, during the Martial Law period, they have once again, even in the 21st century, overseen a transition to a virtual one-party legislature. This outrageous state of affairs is a slap in the face to the constitutional government system that took so long to build. One piece of legislation that was passed in such conditions was the Rural Revitalization Act (農村再生條例), which encountered all kinds of problems the moment it was passed. If that ran into problems, one can only imagine what’s going to happen to the planned amendments to the demarcations of legislative constituencies that the KMT still wants to slip through in the next special session.
What with the ruling and opposition parties being at each others’ throats, it is going to be difficult to see any budgets and laws passed. These special sessions are on shaky ground vis-a-vis our constitutional democracy. The public will have to keep its eye on the people who are supposed to be representing them in the Legislative Yuan.
We ask the DPP not to withdraw from the special session. We also call on the ruling and opposition parties to work together and not get distracted by legislation other than the ECFA. It is important to break the mold of the failed special session. Democracy is still quite fragile in this country, and we must handle it with care.
Ku Chung-hwa is chairman of Citizens’ Congress Watch.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS