State of nation tactics
None of the three parties in the new legislature have more than half of the total seats. With the new legislative session about to begin, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of the pan-blue camp and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) of the white camp have been sharpening their knives.
For the KMT, caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) said he would push for the normalization of a presidential state of the nation address to the legislature and seek amendments to compel the president to answer questions from lawmakers.
TPP secretary-general Wu Chun-cheng (吳春城) agreed, saying that it would be “the sooner the better” for a rule change and that the state of the nation address should be a “question and answer” session to prevent the president from evading accountability.
KMT Legislator Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆) demanded that president-elect William Lai (賴清德) “answer all the questions, and answer them truthfully” after he takes office as president on May 20 following his election victory with the Democratic Progressive Party last month.
The Legislative Yuan — which is the highest organ of public opinion in Taiwan — is responsible for monitoring the government.
This is indeed in line with the operation of a democratic constitutional system.
However, under the “five power” Constitution, the highest organ of the administrative branch is the Executive Yuan, with the Legislative Yuan and Executive Yuan on the same level.
Although the Constitution clearly and definitively states that the premier and his Cabinet members should face questions from the legislature, there is no legal basis for the opposition camp to demand that the president be subjected to such a process as well.
Before an amendment is passed, it should remain a constitutional norm for the legislature to be limited to questioning the premier and Cabinet members.
The opposition camp’s demand for an “impromptu” session of “answering all the questions and answering them truthfully” is at best a disguised threat or an insult to the president.
Moreover, given the uneven quality, knowledge and cultivation of legislators, they would be unable to put aside their resentments —be they personal or because of their party — during a question-and-answer session.
If the lawmakers are unable to ask meaningful questions, how can they expect the president to answer them truthfully?
If the pan-blue and white camps continue to play tricks, it might even trigger public protests.
Tien Fong-wen
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS