Budget negotiations in the legislature were stalled on Tuesday when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers filed more than 10,000 motions for discussion — the majority of which were withdrawn, but only after delays had already occurred.
KMT caucus secretary-general Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) said on July 22 that “our goal is to prevent the ruling party from scoring points.”
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) used similar tactics when it was the opposition, but it must be noted that the KMT enjoyed an uninterrupted monopoly on power in Taiwan for about half a century, has a legacy of governance that affords it influence over the nation’s education system and innumerable governmental and non-governmental organizations, and despite the efforts of the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee, remains one of the richest political parties in the world. The DPP employed stall tactics as its only recourse, and has since demonstrated its commitment to transparency of government and the rectification of historical injustices.
The DPP is not infallible, and it is the KMT’s right and responsibility to check the DPP’s power; however, this would best be done constructively by offering alternatives to policies it disagrees with, cooperating on ones it agrees with, and generally demonstrating a commitment to the interests of the nation.
“The legislature’s operations should not become a joke to the public. I do not believe this is what KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) wants,” DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) told reporters after Tuesday’s failed negotiations.
A paper from the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament in 2014 says: “The systematic recourse to parliamentary boycott cannot be considered a constructive contribution to the democratic process.”
A party can use a boycott as a final resort or an emergency measure, such as when the DPP sought to stall the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement in 2010, which the KMT was trying to push through without negotiating with the DPP.
However, incessant boycotts on every measure put forward by the government as a matter of course not only illegitimizes the opposition, but also destabilizes the political process, which is not in the interests of the nation.
The eminent French professor of constitutional law Georges Vedel defined the responsibilities of the opposition, among other things, as being to “offer political alternatives by developing its own programmes and proposing alternative solutions; to improve the parliamentary decision-making procedure by ensuring debate, analysis and the presentation of divergent opinions; and to strengthen the stability, legitimacy, accountability and transparency of the political process.”
On July 19, when the KMT caucus bombarded DPP lawmakers with water balloons, flour and eggs, prompting the DPP caucus to rush budget proposals for the Forward-looking Infrastructure Development Program and 126 motions through committee review, they not only brought instability to the political process, but also demonstrated that they had no constructive alternative to offer and were only opposing for the sake of opposing.
The Venice Commission says the key to a strong democracy is to have a good balance of power between the majority and the opposition.
“To the extent that the opposition is not guaranteed sufficient basic rights, then this may weaken or destroy the democratic functioning and legitimacy of the system. On the other hand, if the opposition is given broad rights and powers, then this may weaken or destroy the possibility of the majority and the government to effectively run the country,” its 2010 report on the role of opposition in a democratic parliament reads.
The DPP and the KMT must set aside differences and seek to cooperate, or they risk destroying the nation’s relatively young multiparty democracy, turning it back into an authoritarian regime, which at best changes authorities every four to eight years.
A true democracy is premised on the existence of multiple parties each offering constructive alternatives to the various problems the nation faces. If those parties cannot cooperate then the whole nation loses out.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations