While local media outlets over the past week focused on the controversial bill to reform the premium scale of the National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme in the hopes of rescuing the debt-ridden system, few noticed a number of proposals at the very bottom of the legislature’s agenda — proposals that might have significant symbolic meaning.
Out of the 57 proposals that should have been reviewed over the past week, two were proposed to voice support for human rights, particularly those of jailed Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), who won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, and other dissidents in China.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) proposal, if passed, would “urge” China to “be nice to dissidents,” and to let Liu “out of prison as soon as possible.”
The proposal also called on China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as soon as possible, and to carry out political reforms and democratization.
The proposal, which was initiated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), would require a binding legislative resolution obliging the administration to issue a formal request for the release of Liu and another request for ratification of the international covenant and for “concrete measures” taken by China to improve its human rights conditions.
The fact that legislators were preoccupied with political interests when wrangling over the NHI bill this week, while failing to pass the two proposals before Friday — International Human Rights Day — deserves serious scrutiny.
Neither party put forth any motion to move the two proposals from the very bottom of the agenda to the top.
One can’t help but wonder what could have been their motives.
The proposals, though similar, would have conveyed meanings of different magnitude, if they had cleared the legislative floor in time.
The KMT’s proposal would demonstrate the pubic’s concerns, though it would have been weaker because of its wording — pointing to Liu’s and other Chinese dissidents’ human rights conditions and expressing the public’s hope that China will democratize within a short period of time.
The DPP’s proposal would have symbolized pressure from the general public to compel the KMT government to show support for Liu and other dissenters in formal documents.
Moreover, the DPP’s proposal would have also pressured the government to tell Beijing loudly and clearly that Taiwan would like to see concrete actions taken to protect human rights in China instead of issuing a simple call to set Liu free.
Legislators gave up a very good opportunity to give the two proposals momentum by making them binding legislative resolutions, especially when China blocked Liu or any close family member from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Friday, as well as blocking 1.3 billion people in China from accessing reports of the award ceremony.
When awarding the Asia Democracy Award to India’s Rescue Foundation on Friday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said: “Our concern for human rights transcends nationality and borders.”
What he should have also said was: “Our concern for human rights goes beyond political division” and accounted for the reasons why the two human rights proposals, which stand for a universal value and should not need further debate, were put on hold, buried under piles of bills.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS