Critics of the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program cannot be blamed for their accusations that it amounts to pork barrel spending, when the government has failed to explain why so many new rail and construction projects are needed to boost the economy, preferring instead to speak in vague terms.
The Legislative Yuan’s economic committee on Monday and Wednesday reviewed the bill for the program, before passing it on Wednesday, amid great turmoil in the plenary hall.
While six public hearings were held last week in advance of the review, instead of thoughtfully deliberating the bill in accordance with the opinions experts and academics had voiced at those hearings, the bill was rammed through with few, if any, adjustments.
The review has since been rescheduled for next week.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the main opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were quick to point fingers at each other for the violence during the committee’s review — with the KMT lambasting the DPP’s “majoritarian violence,” while the DPP denounced the KMT’s physical attacks.
It was certainly unfortunate of KMT lawmakers to stoop to using tables and chairs as weapons, and splashing coffee and bottled water as they protested the bill.
However, one also has to ask why there is so little trust between the legislative caucuses and whether the opposition’s aggressiveness in this case was bolstered by its having the public’s backing.
Many civic groups and academics have voiced concerns about the massive infrastructure program, in which half of the budget has been allocated for rail construction.
Without a clear explanation of the plans and their rationale, the rail projects proposed could easily be linked to land speculation and appropriation — not a strange assumption given the controversies over expropriations for the Taoyuan Aerotropolis and a science park expansion project in Miaoli County’s Dapu Borough (大埔), to name but two examples of dubious central and local government policies.
Critics have called for detailed evaluation of the proposed rail grade separation plan — elevated and underground — given the costs and the questionable emphasis placed on enhanced land development amid calls for more station-centered development plans instead of route-development focused ones.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said in 2015 that some public infrastructure construction projects had proven to be of little effect, so not only had they been a waste of national resources, but they had eroded the public’s trust in public infrastructure plans.
Given that statement, it should have come as no surprise that she reportedly scolded the Executive Yuan on Wednesday for failing to make the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program proposals more transparent and voiced her concern that no matter how good the plans are, they would end up with a bad image, given the violence seen in the legislature on Wednesday.
Premier Lin Chuan (林全) yesterday said the infrastructure program was the result of months of deliberation over the past year, during which time he and his team had toured the nation to solicit opinions. He also made promises on various concerns raised by campaigners and called for a rational discussion.
Whether the lack of public support for the grandiose plan is due to poor communications and can be easily remedied by better advertising and outreach is debatable. Transparency and public participation are always crucial first steps when it comes to policy implementation in a democracy.
Without such efforts, government policy could end in political disaster, as the Sunflower movement so clearly demonstrated in 2014. There is no excuse for the government not to be aware of the consequences.
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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