During an extraordinary session on June 13, the legislature voted against an amendment to the Accounting Act (會計法) after the Cabinet officially requested that the legislature reconsider its earlier decision, thus bringing the issue back to square one.
This would seem to be the answer to public anger over the controversial amendment, but the question remains: Is this the responsible thing to do for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the Democratic Progressive Party, the People First Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU)?
The amendment was approved last month by the legislative caucuses in closed-door negotiations, an unconstitutional act that ignored the public’s will. Can such behavior be erased by simply reversing the decision?
Who should be held responsible for the failure to publicize the caucus negotiations as the law requires? It has been three weeks since the four caucuses held negotiations on May 31 and decided to pass the amendment, but the legislature still has not released the meeting records. Since Legislative Yuan Secretary-General Lin Hsi-shan (林錫山) was directly appointed by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), was it the Secretariat’s negligence, or did Wang issue an illegal order not to keep records of the meeting? Or, are they perhaps worried that the audio and video records are too embarrassing to be released?
The public has a right to know and Wang and the Secretariat must give the public a clear and definite answer.
As for the caucus whips, TSU whip Lin Shih-chia (林世嘉) was the only one to resign her post. Who else should take the political responsibility? All four whips signed their names in support of the amendment, but after the Cabinet requested that the amendment be reconsidered, almost every legislator made a U-turn and voted against it. This is a rare occurrence in Taiwan and maybe even in world politics.
That lawmakers did not defend the amendment in the face of the Cabinet’s request that it be reconsidered showed their lack of confidence. The crude and unconstitutional amendment that infringed on the judiciary’s powers highlighted lawmakers’ lack of understanding of the legislative and democratic process. This piece of legislation flew in the face of public opinion and the question now is if legislators should be able to put an end to it all with a simple apology.
Are the public’s demands on their politicians so low? How much harm would it cause if the public were to show mercy to such politicians?
More important, was the fact that the key word “teaching [faculty]” was left out of the amendment a result of carelessness, or was it a conspiracy? Who should take responsibility for the omission? Some said that the missing key word was a matter of divine justice, while others said it was a result of carelessness or conspiracy, or that lawmakers pretended to decriminalize the illegal use of teachers’ research funds to hide the fact that it was an attempt to decriminalize the illegal use of politicians’ special allowances.
No matter what the truth is, the point is nobody is taking political responsibility. It seems that this serious flaw in the legislative process means nothing to them.
Absurdly, the Cabinet and the legislature only cared about decriminalizing certain misuses of public funds when pushing for the amendment, but they ignored reviewing and resolving problems in the accounting system.
From beginning to end, this big political farce never focused on the core problem. More sadly, the public has no right to reject this irresponsible government system.
Chang Hung-lin is executive director of Citizen Congress Watch.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs