The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on Thursday pulled out of the televised debate on the cross-strait service trade agreement scheduled for tomorrow, citing the controversy swirling around Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), which it said threatens a constitutional crisis.
It was the one piece of good news in a week of political turmoil.
The two-hour debate, which was agreed upon on Aug. 28, would have seen President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) each ask and respond to four questions as well as give four more rebuttals. It was designed along the lines of Ma’s stage-managed debate on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in April 2010 with then-DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). It would have provided Ma with another chance to show the international community that a second major trade accord with China was given a “full airing” under Taiwan’s democratic system.
However, there is nothing democratic or open about the way the Ma administration has handled cross-strait negotiations. They continue to be conducted by a small cadre of officials and KMT members, who then present the results as a fait accompli.
The likelihood that the debate would have actually provided rational answers to the many questions Taiwanese have about the accord and its potential impact on their businesses and livelihoods was minimal from the outset. Ma and Su would have likely repeated their previous statements and policy positions. It is unlikely that anything Su would have said would have led to Ma altering his stance; it would have simply provided him with the cover of having “listened” to what critics of the pact are saying.
Despite the press releases and speeches rolled out by Ma, Cabinet ministers and the KMT since the agreement was signed on June 21, polls have shown that a majority of people know little about what the accord covers and how it will affect the economy. Instead of analyzing what they are doing wrong in their efforts to “inform” the public, Ma’s team continues to rule by diktat instead of democratically.
Just how little regard Ma’s administration has for the democratic process was made appallingly evident by Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien on Thursday in his comments about Ma’s handling of the “Wang Jin-pyng scandal.”
Wang Chien-shien blamed the speaker’s “tact in dealing with people, his preference for negotiation” as the reason that KMT lawmakers have not been able to use their legislative majority to steamroll bills through the legislature since Ma took office in 2008.
He laid the failure of the KMT to accomplish all of its goals on the DPP’s “choke-hold” on the legislative process, adding that Wang Jin-pyng should have resigned long ago and apologized “both to the party and the nation.”
Given the New Party’s failure to win any legislative seats in the past two legislative elections, one might see where Wang Chien-shien, one of the founders of the party, would be feeling a bit peeved with that branch of the government.
However, he had no problems with the pan-blue camp’s “choke-hold” on the legislature during the eight years the DPP was in power.
For the head of the government watchdog to think that tact and negotiation are not essential to the legislative process is dumbfounding. It is no less astounding that he thinks Wang Jin-pyng first owes an apology to the KMT for failing to allow it to run roughshod over the legislature before the speaker apologizes to the nation for the legislative morass.
The nation’s politics will never emerge from the blue-green divide and closed-door dealings with China until more officials and leaders put the nation above party politics. Unfortunately that does not appear likely to happen any time soon.
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