The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on Thursday pulled out of the televised debate on the cross-strait service trade agreement scheduled for tomorrow, citing the controversy swirling around Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), which it said threatens a constitutional crisis.
It was the one piece of good news in a week of political turmoil.
The two-hour debate, which was agreed upon on Aug. 28, would have seen President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) each ask and respond to four questions as well as give four more rebuttals. It was designed along the lines of Ma’s stage-managed debate on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in April 2010 with then-DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). It would have provided Ma with another chance to show the international community that a second major trade accord with China was given a “full airing” under Taiwan’s democratic system.
However, there is nothing democratic or open about the way the Ma administration has handled cross-strait negotiations. They continue to be conducted by a small cadre of officials and KMT members, who then present the results as a fait accompli.
The likelihood that the debate would have actually provided rational answers to the many questions Taiwanese have about the accord and its potential impact on their businesses and livelihoods was minimal from the outset. Ma and Su would have likely repeated their previous statements and policy positions. It is unlikely that anything Su would have said would have led to Ma altering his stance; it would have simply provided him with the cover of having “listened” to what critics of the pact are saying.
Despite the press releases and speeches rolled out by Ma, Cabinet ministers and the KMT since the agreement was signed on June 21, polls have shown that a majority of people know little about what the accord covers and how it will affect the economy. Instead of analyzing what they are doing wrong in their efforts to “inform” the public, Ma’s team continues to rule by diktat instead of democratically.
Just how little regard Ma’s administration has for the democratic process was made appallingly evident by Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien on Thursday in his comments about Ma’s handling of the “Wang Jin-pyng scandal.”
Wang Chien-shien blamed the speaker’s “tact in dealing with people, his preference for negotiation” as the reason that KMT lawmakers have not been able to use their legislative majority to steamroll bills through the legislature since Ma took office in 2008.
He laid the failure of the KMT to accomplish all of its goals on the DPP’s “choke-hold” on the legislative process, adding that Wang Jin-pyng should have resigned long ago and apologized “both to the party and the nation.”
Given the New Party’s failure to win any legislative seats in the past two legislative elections, one might see where Wang Chien-shien, one of the founders of the party, would be feeling a bit peeved with that branch of the government.
However, he had no problems with the pan-blue camp’s “choke-hold” on the legislature during the eight years the DPP was in power.
For the head of the government watchdog to think that tact and negotiation are not essential to the legislative process is dumbfounding. It is no less astounding that he thinks Wang Jin-pyng first owes an apology to the KMT for failing to allow it to run roughshod over the legislature before the speaker apologizes to the nation for the legislative morass.
The nation’s politics will never emerge from the blue-green divide and closed-door dealings with China until more officials and leaders put the nation above party politics. Unfortunately that does not appear likely to happen any time soon.
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
As a person raised in a family that revered the teachings of Confucius (孔子) and Mencius (孟子), I believe that both sages would agree with Hong Kong students that people-based politics is the only legitimate way to govern China, including Hong Kong. More than two millennia ago, Confucius insisted that a leader’s first loyalty is to his people — they are water to the leader’s ship. Confucius said that the water could let the ship float only if it sailed in accordance with the will of the water. If the ship sailed against the will of the water, the ship would sink. Two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly