The occupation of the Legislative Yuan has ended, and the legislature’s agreement to discuss and debate the trade agreement in services before approval appears to be back on track.
Whether President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who also serves as party chairman, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will keep their promise remains to be seen.
Similarly the hunger strike of Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) and the numerous protests against the continuation of the building of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant seem to have achieved their purpose.
The building of that plant has been temporarily suspended. Whether there will also be a proper discussion and debate on the safety of nuclear power and its role in producing energy for Taiwan also remains to be seen.
Nonetheless, whatever the outcome, in both cases, one thing has become apparent — the residue of the KMT’s past one-party state rule still dwells over the nation like a pungent odor.
From the numerous posters and cartoons to be seen during the occupation of the Legislative Yuan there can be no doubt that the recognition of Ma’s double-speak and duplicity has clearly filtered down to the young.
That same lack of trust has also become evident with the protests over nuclear power and the fact that the protests did not stop with the simple KMT promise that it would look into it.
In both cases, when the smoke had settled and the streets were cleared, what remained staring everyone in the face was the continued avoidance of transparency and accountability by Ma and his administration as well as their inability to deal with the situation in a democratic way.
In each of the two cases above, the consistent mantra of Ma and the KMT has been their well-worn cliche: “Trust us; we alone know what is best for the country. Do not try to examine and discuss who may actually be profiting in these matters.”
No one is buying that mantra anymore.
This black box of avoiding transparency has certainly been the key strategy in Ma’s handling of the service trade pact proposal.
We are not talking about the initial need countries have to negotiate in privacy; that is understood. However, what we are talking about is the avoidance of any discussion of what terms actually were agreed upon in each particular industry once the negotiations were over.
With its majority in the Legislative Yuan, the KMT is pretty well guaranteed of passing the pact, so the obvious question is, why does it not want the details of this agreement discussed item by item as the majority of the public want?
If the trade deal is as beneficial as the KMT claims, why not have it be demonstrated item by item?
This is the natural way for all to be convinced. Time cannot be used as an excuse, for the foiled attempt to try to slip the agreement through the legislature without discussion has already delayed its approval more than could be expected.
There has to be something more and the lack of transparency appears to be the rub.
What the aim of passing the agreement without discussion purposely avoids demonstrating is who and what sectors are profiting and who and what sectors are not? These are the details that the Ma administration does not want transparently exposed.
A blanket pass could slip these details by until it was too late and the damage had already been done; but to have an item by item discussion and the passing of agreements in the open that would be harmful to particular industries is something that no legislator or president wants to face. The damage to numerous industries would increasingly be evident as the discussions were taking place.
The same can be said of the matter of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
When Lin began his fast, he made it clear that he would not oppose the completion of the plant if it were properly examined, debated and approved in the Legislative Yuan; it was his wish that the legislature along with the Executive Yuan accept accountability and take full responsibility for decisions.
Whatever personal reasons Lin held in opposing nuclear power for Taiwan, he would bow to the democratic process.
What Lin was stating repeatedly is that those in authority should not pass the buck. The Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan were the ones responsible for the safety of the plant and the country; they should do their duty and not pass responsibility off to a birdcage referendum.
Avoidance of transparency and a dodgy smokescreen again appeared to be the government’s modus operandi.
However, this growing lack of and avoidance of transparency by the Ma government is not the only bone of contention. Another disturbing issue is also evident. For those who walk the streets of downtown Taipei, more and more barbed wire is going up, especially around government buildings. More and more barricades are being erected. What is happening? Is this a democratic president who professes to know what the people feel? Something is missing.
To the outside world, Ma regularly makes the claim that relations between “democratic” Taiwan, the US and China are the best they have ever been; yet citizens inside Taiwan obviously question this and wonder.
Why is Taipei looking more and more like a city under siege? Is this a democracy where all voices are being heard? Perhaps the veneer the Ma administration was hiding behind has worn off.
Martial law was lifted in Taiwan in 1987, 27 years ago, yet the residue of the KMT’s one-party state somehow still remains over Taiwan like a pungent odor. Strange.
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and