Recent violence in the legislature prompted well-deserved comments that legislators should act more appropriately. It also led to renewed protestations from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its supporters that their conduct was a result of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) once again using its majority to force through legislation without obtaining consensus across party lines.
It should be emphasized, however, that KMT methods have been neither illegal nor undemocratic. In 2008, the people of Taiwan granted the KMT a clear mandate to govern, which is what it is doing. However, playing political hardball runs counter to democratic ideals if we forget that what makes Taiwan democratic is not abstract principles, but a body of rules and procedures, checks and balances, whereby power is shared and regulated.
While the current government may make mistakes or pass laws that some find objectionable, no one can accuse it of squandering a legislative opportunity to get things done, which was precisely the charge leveled at US President Barack Obama during his first year in office, after what many regarded as a naive attempt at bipartisanship.
This is not to defend the KMT’s legislative agenda or methods, which would no doubt benefit from less railroading as well as more openness and finesse. However, there will be other elections for the voters to judge the party’s performance and the KMT will contest those based on its agenda and ability to get things done.
Too often the DPP, whether it has been in or out of power, excuses its failures by blaming the unprincipled tactics of the KMT, China or both. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) has been a perfect storm for the kind of highly principled, but otherwise helpless outrage seen at the provisional session in the legislature on July 8, as the ruling party used its majority to alter the course of Taiwanese history.
Elections are coming and when they do, will voters opt for the party that sets an agenda and achieves it? Or will they vote for one that basks in playing the perennial victim, publicly acting out its impotence for the entire world to see?
The DPP must get its house in order, because its current approach just isn’t working. Not only does it have little to offer as an alternative to economic and cross-strait issues crucial to the country’s future, but party principles being what they are, the government has every reason to bypass legislative procedures that allow the opposition to obstruct progress at every step.
In addition to more pragmatism, the DPP should look internally for ways to trim the KMT majority. Nothing will undo recent DPP gains more than factionalism, especially in the south, where traditional party strength is being undermined by intra-party rivalries. What the DPP considered a constitutional crisis worthy of violence on July 8 was nothing more than the KMT voting along party lines — a characteristic of party politics the world over, which itself reflects the unity that DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should have at the top of her agenda for party reform.
There is no future in excuses. The DPP lost the vote, plain and simple. Rather than beating the drum of victimhood, it should suck it up and prepare to do better next time.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
RSS