The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legislator-at-large list includes representatives of child and welfare organizations as well as organizations for people with physical disabilities. It has been praised by the pro--government press as the best thing since powdered milk. However, it is precisely as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) puts it: “It is commendable that the KMT has considered these issues for the first time.”
The KMT has clearly included these representatives on their at-large legislator list because the party’s election campaign is losing momentum. What really counts is whether they will be able to make a difference after the elections. Yet, just as the KMT has been trying to create a fresh image with the announcement of the list, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been battered by the media for allegedly meeting in secret with a bookmaker. These two events make for an ironic contrast, and it is not very strange that the public is talking.
This list, which was reportedly decided on by the campaign headquarters of Ma and his co-runner in the presidential elections, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), does not necessarily mean that Ma is showing concern for disadvantaged groups. Quite the contrary: Over the past three years, Ma’s policies have favored pro-Chinese political and business groups and hurt most other people, disadvantaged groups in particular. As he faces an increasingly difficult election battle, it is because of the sheer dissatisfaction of these groups that Ma has included their representatives on the legislator-at-large list in an attempt to cover up three years of neglect. The problem is that the Ma administration’s insensitivity to these groups has made them even more disadvantaged. Will this cosmetic inclusion of these representatives bring any tangible improvements for these groups?
Many KMT legislative candidates knew that the recently suggested increase of an insubstantial NT$316 (US$10) in the farmers’ pension would have a negative impact on their own election campaigns, but they still submitted to Ma’s will and agreed to implement his orders even though they were unfair to elderly farmers. Facing public uproar, Ma then decided to increase the raise to NT$1,000, as originally suggested by the DPP. As Ma flip-flops, so the party’s legislators have to flip-flop.
With such a president and such a party chairman, what is the real significance of including a few representatives of disadvantaged groups on the party’s legislator-at-large list? After having ignored those voters for more than three years, Ma must think they are weak-minded in addition to being disadvantaged.
Ma’s major turnaround on the farmers’ pension increase once again highlights that his leadership style is to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Such an imperious and overbearing leader, who would be happiest if the legislature were the Presidential Office’s legislative office, simply ignores public opinion — the foundation of the legislators’ power.
Take the signing of the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), for example. Once Ma’s orders went out, KMT legislators did not dare submit the agreement to a substantive review, and did what they could to implement Ma’s wishes. Ma decided that the farmers’ subsidy should be raised by NT$316, and it was Ma who, in a major policy turnaround, decided that it should be raised by NT$1,000. What was the role of legislators in this process? They are supposed to speak for the general public, after all. Where is the dignity that the masters of the nation (the public) should enjoy?
This also reveals the hypocrisy that underlies the inclusion of representatives of disadvantaged groups on the legislator-at-large list. And not only them: Even a legislator-at-large who has been chief of the army is a weak representative among KMT legislators because they are appointed from above and do not have the foundation of a popularly elected legislator. After those “weak representatives” enter the legislature, they must toe the party line and, at the moment, the party line is dictated by Ma. Anyone who doesn’t listen is expelled from the party, and then they lose their qualifications for remaining legislators. Given this situation, how could legislators representing disadvantaged groups ever dare oppose Ma to fight for the disadvantaged?
There is a saying to the effect that those in the loop watch the exit, while outsiders watch the show. No one should think that Ma has repented and will now only do good just because he included representatives of disadvantaged groups in the legislator-at-large list and raised the proposed farmers’ pension increase to NT$1,000.
In ordinary times, does Ma focus on disadvantaged groups or on the so-called “1992 consensus”? Is he friendly toward disadvantaged groups or toward big business and powerful people? When raising salaries, did he first think of military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers, or of the working class, fishermen, farmers and temporary workers? Does he say: “We’re right behind you,” to disadvantaged groups or to bookmakers?
If he has not been concerned about disadvantaged groups for the past three years, but tricks them into voting for him by adding a few of their representatives to his legislator-at-large list, it would not necessarily mean that he would suddenly see the error of his ways if he is reelected.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under