During the party-state era, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) controlled the media. It would portray the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement as violent disruptors and emphasize conflict in the legislature, saddling the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with the unfair label of the “party of violence” for several decades.
Today, we are seeing images of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍), sporting a hard hat on her head and shoes with steel-toe caps on her feet charging to the legislative podium in an egregious display of violence. It is not for nothing that she has been called the “Kinmen tank.”
It was because the party-state media would only broadcast the “violent behavior” of the dangwai movement that the latter had to adopt this policy, to get some exposure for itself and get the information out past the media controls. Now, the KMT is exploiting the very democracy that the “outside the party” movement and the DPP had fought so hard for, in a premeditated use of violence, despite having a clear legislative majority. The KMT is the true “party of violence.”
It is not that the three amendments proposed by the opposition parties, involving the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) and the allocation of public finances, cannot be discussed. There is a reason that elected officials in democratic countries enjoy guaranteed terms of office, and Republic of China (ROC) founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) believed that it was best to have a facility for recall.
Political scientists are divided on the issue, but they are not averse to the idea of setting the threshold for recall high.
However, laws must have logical rigor. There is consensus among the public on the need for the right to recall, and the KMT says that it is the heir of Sun, and yet it seeks to nullify the power of recall.
The allocation of public finances would impact how the nation is run for several decades. It is true that, in the past, many people, including the DPP pioneers, believed that the excessive concentration of money in the center was unfair to localities around the country, leading to the situation in which local governments became reliant on central government subsidies.
However, how public finances are allocated would affect the whole country, and amendments should take into consideration the experience of other countries, refer to expert opinions and even be passed through simulations before they proceed.
Instead, the KMT has left it to a spurious discussion among a small number of people, and then passed it by a show of hands.
An even more curious “innovation” is the prescribed number of Constitutional Court judges to reach an agreement in the opposition’s amendments to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法). In the US, nine judges sit on the Supreme Court, and a minimum of six must be present for a decision to be handed down, and this can be passed by a relative majority of four judges.
The opposition parties combined form a legislative majority, and there are seven vacancies on the Constitutional Court. In Western democracies, a rational approach would be for the opposition to force the government to allow it to nominate persons amenable to their own position to half of the vacant places.
Instead, the KMT-led opposition would prefer to hobble the court: No wonder people suspect that it is simply trying to put a spanner in the works.
Nobody is being fooled by what the KMT is doing. It is not only DPP supporters that are enraged, even swing voters disagree with the chaos. This is why President William Lai’s (賴清德) approval ratings are increasing, stabilizing at about 50 percent, higher than the percentage of votes he won during the presidential election.
Of course, the DPP needs to look into itself and ask why it lost so many legislative seats, but Taiwanese voted for the opposition in the hope that it would introduce policies that would benefit the country, not to settle political scores and bring the nation to the brink of a constitutional crisis. If the KMT believes that the Constitution is a joke, then it is most welcome to abolish the ROC Constitution entirely and write a new one. The DPP would be sure to cooperate, and there is little doubt they would secure the two-thirds threshold needed for constitutional amendments.
Tommy Lin is chairman of the Formosa Republican Association and director of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance.
Translated by Paul Cooper
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS