A lot of things can be done in 30 seconds. For example, brushing your teeth, placing an order for sun cakes or racing to a ticket counter before it closes.
However, until Monday last week, you would not imagine that list would include clearing the legislative review of a trade pact that matters to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese.
Yet, absurdly, that is exactly what happened on Monday last week, when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chang Ching-chung (張慶忠), with co-conveners of the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee, slated a mere 30 seconds to inspect the controversial cross-strait service trade pact as part of their effort to rush the accord through the committee review and move it to a floor session.
Chang’s move not only failed to honor the consensus to have the pact undergo an item-by-item review by the committee — a decision reached by all party caucuses in June last year — it also constituted a great blow against Taiwanese democracy and became a catalyst of the rage that drove student protesters to occupy the legislative chamber on Tuesday last week. The protesters are calling for Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) to nullify Chang’s decision and demanding that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration withdraw the pact and institute a law governing supervision by the Legislative Yuan of all cross-strait agreements.
The stalemate between the student protesters and Ma still continues after more than a week. However, in one respect, the student movement has been successful: It has inspired public discourse and brought to national attention one core issue that until now has been much neglected — the need for an item-by-item review of the cross-strait service trade pact.
The controversial accord has been stalled in the legislature since it was signed in June last year after a process that was not made open to public scrutiny. If the students had not occupied the legislature in anger at Chang’s actions and the opaque handling of the agreement, the pact — given the KMT’s majority — may very well have been passed by the legislature, without any inspection of its contents.
If the pact is as good for the nation as the government claims, alleging it would bring more benefits than harm to local industries, an item-by-item committee review would provide a great opportunity for all to have a close look at its actual contents, delight in all the positives and therefore silence the naysayers. Moreover, given the KMT’s majority, it would have no problem passing an item-by-item review at the committee level, despite objections from the Democratic Progressive Party-led opposition.
So, the KMT’s persistent refusal to have the pact undergo an item-by-item committee review only works to foster public doubt and raises one fundamental question — What is the content of the pact that the Ma government does not want Taiwanese to know?
More importantly, if the cross-strait service trade agreement, signed without transparency, prior public consent or oversight, could be rushed through committee review without any scrutiny and then clear the legislative floor, it would set a terrible — if not frightening — precedent for any future cross-strait accords.
What if cross-strait agreements such as military confidence-building mechanisms and peace accords are also concluded without the consent of the Taiwanese people? This is a scary thought.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95