When looking at the student movement, we must first look at Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) and his response. He tried to bring off a softer populist stance in response to the demand that the service trade agreement be rejected and that a law regulating oversight of cross-strait agreements be drawn up. Unfortunately no one bought that. Next, he tried to confuse people, claiming that there are already four levels of oversight in place in an attempt to render establishing new legislation unnecessary. However, one has to wonder if the opaque handling of the pact and the occupation of the legislative chamber are not sufficient evidence that these supervisory mechanisms are ineffective. Jiang has made it clear that the Cabinet is not going to withdraw the agreement: The decision is final, leaving no room for discussion.
Since Jiang is working on the premise that the agreement will be ratified and that there will be no legislation, why bother showing up at the legislature? Did he want to create the impression that there had been dialogue and establish the conditions for a later evacuation? After leaving hastily, Jiang held a press conference at the Executive Yuan, criticizing the students and asking if a meeting attached with preconditions constituted dialogue.
This raises the question of why the students and members of the public were protesting at all: Was it not because President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Jiang had set — the unconstitutional — precondition that the legislature was not allowed to change a single character in the agreement and had to pass it in toto? Just who is removing every possibility of dialogue?
Ma followed Jiang into the spotlight, with a 30-minute press conference reiterating the same slogan: “Believe me when I tell you that the service trade agreement really can save Taiwan.” However, the protests started because of lack of confidence in this kind of minority decision. Is a president who confuses deer antlers with the hair on their ears capable of grasping what “category CPC 513” in the pact means? Did he really know what type 1 and type 2 telecommunications business were when he guaranteed that “opening up type i and type ii telecommunications business will not endanger national security”?
“The student occupation of the legislature is illegal. Is this the kind of democracy we want?” Ma said. If that is the case, then the counter-proposition must be: “Ma is illegally pushing the legislature around. Is that the kind of democracy we want?” Who was it that gave the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip an ultimatum: “If the service trade agreement isn’t passed, you’re the one I’ll come looking for.” As proven through controversies surrounding US beef imports and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮) the view that party discipline overrides public opinion has banned democracy from the legislature. Ma and Jiang are calling on students to leave in order to allow a return to normal operations, but their kind of “normal” means that party discipline will continue to force the legislature to function as a rubber stamp.
As to Chang Ching-chung’s (張慶忠) actions, Ma equivocated. Chang was basically talking to himself in a corner of the committee room for 30 seconds when he declared that the review of the agreement was taking too long. The Cabinet immediately approved it and the KMT’s legislative caucus endorsed it. This disdain for the legislature and trampling on democracy was the fuse that set off the occupation. How can there be any talk of legislative autonomy?
Mysteriously, Ma has said that it will be up to the judiciary to decide whether the occupation was illegal. Has the process to settle accounts already begun?
Lin Yu-hsiung is a professor in the College of Law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath