One day after President William Lai (賴清德) was sworn in, tens of thousands of citizens gathered outside the Legislative Yuan, as legislators held a highly contentious session inside the building. Protesters decried the two major opposition parties — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), whose combined seats in the legislature outnumber that of Lai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — for sponsoring several bills that are widely viewed as unconstitutional, financially and environmentally unsustainable or a threat to privacy rights.
Equally objectionable in the eyes of many civic groups was the disregard for due process, as the bills were rushed through the legislature without sufficient discussion or bipartisan negotiations, and legislators were allowed to vote anonymously so that they could avoid accountability during the next election.
Many described the civil unrest as the new Sunflower movement, referencing the student movement that took place 10 years ago at the same site for similar reasons.
However, academics and veteran activists have warned that the current KMT-TPP sponsored bills would have a greater and more destructive impact on Taiwan’s democracy than the proposed trade deal with China being opposed in 2014.
One proposal would allow the legislature to punish government officials, legal persons and private citizens that fail to hand over documents by finding them in “contempt of the legislature” and/or imposing exorbitant fines. Grave concerns about the overreach of the legislative branch has worried and angered many.
Ironically, the placards of many protesters read: “I hold the legislature in contempt” as KMT and TPP legislators were poised to pass their “contempt of the legislature” bills.
Taiwanese must indeed express their anger at the Legislative Yuan, as KMT and TPP legislators have abandoned their civic duties.
Yale University sociologist Jeffrey Alexander says that, while campaign speeches and performances are often intensely partisan and even ugly, successful democracies must maintain cultural rituals and institutional procedures to ensure that partisan struggles, no matter how intense, work to strengthen, not derail, democracy.
Thus, the winners give acceptance speeches to honor their competitors and reaffirm nonpartisan commitment to the people, while the losers concede elections and vow to support the people’s chosen candidates.
Political parties commit to following and protecting common democratic procedures even as they pursue ideologically divergent goals, and government officials are obligated to follow the law and serve the people, above and beyond party interests.
If this sounds mundane, it is worth remembering that these civic virtues were put to an extreme test in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election in the US. Donald Trump became the first US president not to attend his successor’s inauguration since 1869, which exacerbated rather than healed the social rifts caused by the election.
In their latest dangerous and detestable violations of their civic duties, KMT and TPP legislators are endangering Taiwan’s democracy for the sake of partisan goals. Many of them opted to boycott Lai’s inauguration on Monday. They then contravened democratic processes to pursue legislation. Their sponsored bills have raised many eyebrows regarding whether they are meant to serve political parties or the populace.
Throughout, these legislators have been repeating the mantra “democracy means the minority obeys the majority.” Therein lies the reason for the people to hold the legislature in contempt, for democracy must not be reduced to merely counting votes.
Stripped of the separation of powers, substantive policy evaluation and the protection of civil liberties, liberal democracies face the danger of degenerating into illiberal democracies. This is the path onto which KMT and TPP legislators are pushing Taiwan.
That is why the people of Taiwan must hold the legislature in contempt until further notice.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of Sociology at the University of California-Davis, whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS