Last week, the arms procurement bill was finally put on the legislative agenda after being vetoed 41 times in the Procedure Committee. But on Friday the pan-blue camp halted the legislative session, preventing any discussion of the matter on the floor.
Legislators who oppose the bill should not continue blocking it but allow it to be debated, giving the public a better understanding of the matter. Being on the agenda is different from being passed. It only means that the legislature is able to review the proposal. When it is discussed, the public can attempt to understand both the arms bill's content and scope.
If a consensus cannot be reached after discussion and negotiation, it may still be rejected by the legislature. But in this process, the public will gain a better understanding of Taiwan's defense capacities and needs.
The controversy presently focuses on whether the weapons are being sold for a reasonable price. In fact, the plan is closely connected to the nation's overall defense policy and security strategy. This is not the right time to haggle over prices, because this concerns the nation's defense. The plan grows out of the nation's broad security strategy.
Apart from the debate on the budget, there is also concern over the possible negative impact on Taiwan-US relations if the plan fails. Unfortunately, the core issue -- the nation's strategic and tactical needs -- has been drowned out by the torrent of personal abuse from politicians and the media. As a result, there is an absence of real debate on the issues. This clearly does not help Taiwan's development, and it may prevent the public from becoming better educated about national defense.
The US has for a long time said that it will accept Taiwan's democratic decisions regarding the purchases. But as former deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver pointed out, what the US does not understand is why the legislature will not even put the issue on the agenda for discussion.
If we take a closer look at the plan, its content and items have been amended. Some items have been moved to the regular budget from a special one. The budget has also been reduced significantly. Doesn't even the amended plan deserve legislative consideration?
Several pan-blue-camp leaders claim that it is unnecessary to propose a plan, because the procurement of weapons was vetoed in the referendum held last year on the same day as the presidential vote. It should be remembered, however, that another referendum question was also "vetoed": the establishment of a "peace and stability framework" for cross-strait interaction. According to the pan-blue leaders' logic, the cross-strait talks they promote so actively should also be banned, since the second referendum question also failed to pass.
In which case, the public would be more likely to oppose their trips to China and the ongoing forum between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the communists.
Instead of sticking to such twisted logic, the two referendum questions should be clarified. Last year's vote should not be seen as the end of the issue.
Some oppose the arms procurement plan because they see it as "spendthrift" purchasing. Even if they do not support it, doesn't it deserve a chance for rational discussion in the Legislative Yuan? The boycott is a result of a political confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. But rather than emotional accusations, the public should be allowed to thoroughly examine the plan under the framework of national security.
Lai I-chung is the director of foreign policy studies at Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS