The scuffles on the legislative floor on Friday last week over the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) forcing controversial legislation through to the next reading were embarrassing for the nation, but they were hardly unprecedented, and it is important not to fixate on them. Far more pernicious things are happening in the background.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus was fiercely opposed to the KMT’s and TPP’s antics. Objections and concerns have been expressed in many quarters, including international academics, the Taiwan Bar Association, local legal academics and the public. Protesters gathered outside the Legislative Yuan in Taipei on Tuesday morning and remain there even now, from an original several hundred to an estimated 8,000 on Tuesday evening to a reported 30,000 yesterday morning.
To appropriate a phrase, 30,000 protesters cannot be wrong. The similarities to the Sunflower movement of almost exactly 10 years ago are striking. That movement in 2014 was a response to the KMT legislative caucus trying to force through a cross-strait service trade agreement and sending the proposed bill directly to a plenary session for its second reading without a substantive review. It caused a collapse in the KMT’s support. That the public would be incensed by political parties so brazenly subverting the democratic process and forcing through unconstitutional legislation is not rocket science. One wonders exactly why the KMT thought it would be a good idea. Is there another hand orchestrating this in the background?
The bills this time seek to significantly expand the power of the Legislative Yuan over the executive branch and challenge the government’s authority over budgets. They would add “contempt of the legislature” to the Criminal Code and strengthen the legislature’s investigative powers, together with its subpoena powers and the ability to impose civil and criminal penalties for noncooperation, and expand the power of opposition legislators to access government documents, including confidential information. They would also allow considerable amounts of public money to be spent on projects other than military preparedness.
Soochow University professor Chen Fang-yu (陳方隅) told Nikkei Asia that he expects the KMT and TPP to oppose military reforms if the legislation is passed; other commentators believe they would also target renewable energy projects and the Indigenous Submarine Program. The Taiwan Bar Association has released a statement saying that the opposition’s “failure to perform its constitutional function of deliberating on laws and budgets not only undermines Taiwan’s democratic foundations, but also violates the fundamental principles of democratic constitutionalism and representative democracy,” and urged lawmakers to “substantively discuss and review” the bills, and “not to destroy the principles of democratic constitutionalism for partisan interests.”
These sentiments were echoed by a group of foreign academics, journalists and politicians on Monday, who called the reform proposals “potentially unconstitutional and a usurpation of political power held by other coequal branches of government.”
The KMT and TPP are saying that the DPP is hypocritically bemoaning its lack of power after having failed to secure a legislative majority in January’s legislative elections. They might be right in saying that the DPP is sore now that the boot is on the other foot. That in no way means that the concerns are unfounded, and it is not the DPP alone that is protesting. These proposals are being dressed up as “legislative reform,” but in reality they risk introducing unconstitutional contradictions that would hobble the functioning of government and obstruct the government’s ability to continue its much-needed military reforms.
This, and the legislative chaos they have caused, will be very much welcomed by the Chinese Communist Party. Is it the invisible hand?
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS