If evidence was needed of how poorly Taiwan’s legislature works, Wednesday’s legislative review and approval of Executive Yuan-nominated Central Election Commission (CEC) members would be a good place to start.
On the surface, the review process appears to be a good idea. The Executive Yuan nominates CEC members based on experience, political acumen and character, and a panel of legislators led by a committee chairperson reviews the nominees before deciding whether they should be appointed.
Granting permission for somebody to become a CEC member is an important decision, because these people have power over Taiwanese elections and could essentially shape Taiwanese democracy.
In the review process, lawmakers are meant to grill candidates on their political views, their character and their ethics. If they are unsuitable and, for example, hold an allegiance to any particular political party or harbor authoritarian views, they should be rejected outright. This needs to be established in the review.
Wednesday’s review went nothing like that. Instead, it was a farce on the level of political satire. The writers of Everyone Talks Nonsense (全民大悶鍋) couldn’t have thought up a better script.
The review process had barely started when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Huang Jen-shu (黃仁杼) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Pan Wei-kang (潘維剛) noticed that one of the nominees was missing. Apparently, incumbent CEC member Chai Song-lin (柴松林), who was up for review, did not show up because he was, in fact, overseas. This angered legislators across party lines, but they could not agree on whether to postpone the review or keep going, so KMT Legislator Huang Chao-shun (黃昭順), who was convening the meeting, called a 10-minute break for negotiations.
Huang Chao-shun then disappeared and didn’t return for 50 minutes. After offering an absurd excuse for her extended absence, she reconvened the meeting. However, when DPP legislators protested, she called another recess, which lasted until lunchtime. By that time, the DPP legislators had quit the review in frustration, but that didn’t stop the meeting reconvening after lunch, with the remaining KMT legislators approving all five CEC nominees, even the absent Chai.
Three of the nominees were incumbents, while the other two were picked by an Executive Yuan under Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) that shows little neutrality in political matters. Those incumbents were responsible for the CEC blocking multiple requests by the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union to put the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) to a referendum. Without the referendum, Taiwan’s public had no say over a cross-strait agreement that is paving the way to economic unification.
The same CEC had also decided to move next year’s presidential election forward two months, which would give President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) if he is voted out, four months to meddle in state affairs before having to vacate the Presidential Office.
To all intents and purposes, the CEC appears loyal to the Ma administration. Furthermore, it seems willing to bend the rules to rig the game in Ma’s favor. The legislative review committee is the last bastion of hope for public officials to fix this situation.
That is why it is so disappointing to see CEC officials take up their positions without even having to answer basic questions about their character, mainly because KMT and DPP legislators can’t agree on anything, even what to do when political nominees disrespect the legislature.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS