Last week, former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), suggested that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) call a national affairs conference to discuss the serious pension fund and fiscal crises. The DPP adopted the suggestion, making it the party’s official position. The response from the Presidential Office was to invite opposition leaders to an informal consultation on national policy.
In light of the long-standing antagonism between the government and opposition parties, Tsai was right when she said: “Taiwan’s fiscal crisis is becoming increasingly serious and the inappropriate design of the pension system is causing the crisis to deteriorate further. Now is the time to re-establish political rationality and move beyond party biases so that we can face and resolve these problems together.”
The Presidential Office rejected Tsai’s suggestion, saying that the pension system is a policy issue that can only be handled by the Cabinet and the legislature, so there is no need to turn to external solutions.
However, the Cabinet and the legislature have shown themselves incapable of handling the resistance of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators to abolishing the year-end bonuses for retired civil servants, military personnel and public school teachers. The pension system is an issue that is much more complex and difficult, and it is not something these two institutions can easily resolve by themselves, not to mention the even bigger crisis of the nation’s fiscal deficit.
The door to dialogue between the government and the opposition has long been shut tight. However, pension system reform, the fiscal situation and the economy are issues close to the hearts of the public and they offer the best opportunity to break through the political deadlock and create an atmosphere of good will.
If this path is rejected, one wonders if the Presidential Office will ever be able to find a more appropriatemoment to reconcile with the opposition.
The Presidential Office stressed that the suggestion of a national policy consultation is an invitation by Ma to engage in dialogue with opposition leaders in his role as president. The intent, of course, is to stress his position as president, rather than agreeing to sit down with opposition leaders on an equal footing, as KMT chairman.
Furthermore, since it would be a consultation, the president would simply listen to the views of opposition leaders. Whether to accept their views or not would be entirely up to his discretion. Perhaps the president would see a political boost by meeting with opposition leaders in the Presidential Office for the first time ever, but he would be doing so without taking the political risk of facing the attacks of a multitude of opposition members.
A national affairs conference is a meeting that includes the leaders of the political opposition, academics and experts. In the past, the conclusions reached at such conferences have been submitted to the Cabinet and the legislature for approval, making them legally binding. Following such a conference, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) initiated major political reforms, such as constitutional reform and free elections for the whole legislature. Furthermore, such a conference carries immense political significance since it can serve to build national consensus and reflects a willingness by both the government and the opposition to make contributions to the nation.
Since Ma became president, Taiwan has been in sore need of a symbol under which it can unite. A national affairs conference that places the broader national interest ahead of narrow party interests is the only thing that would be able to create unity and cohesion, and resolve the country’s major issues.
If Ma continues to haggle over the formalities of a meeting with the opposition, the legal status of a conference and media reporting, and insists on a limited political consultation, then he will miss an historic opportunity to address the nation’s problems.
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
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
RSS