Following intense physical conflict inside the Legislative Yuan and a protest joined by thousands outside the chamber, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers on Dec. 20 passed three sets of controversial amendments.
This week, these legislators were poised to pass more controversial laws. It might feel exhausting to watch yet another episode in the incessant steam of bad news about global as well as domestic threats to democracy. Yet members of Taiwanese civil society must resist the temptation to mentally disengage from this chaos; instead, we should continue to demand that legislators do their job of deliberating the bills before voting on them.
Since the passage of these bills, many have argued that these laws are instruments of an opposition power grab, designed to protect the KMT and TPP lawmakers from being recalled or receiving the Constitutional Court’s unfavorable rulings, as well as to weaken their political rivals, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led central government, by draining its resources.
The KMT has countered these criticisms by stating that tighter requirements for recall petitions would prevent abuse and fraud, constitutional interpretations must meet stricter standards for procedural integrity, and allocating more resources for local governments is good for the public. On Thursday last week, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) hosted a banquet for his party’s lawmakers, celebrating their legislative success and “combat power,” ridiculing the DPP lawmakers as sore losers.
In Taiwan’s polarized political landscape, these debates are likely to remain exactly that — polarized. However, one issue that citizens must make explicit, political positions notwithstanding, is that democracy is far from simply counting votes. Real democracy must involve substantive discussion. However, these new amendments were not subject to any deliberation whatsoever, causing DPP Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) to lament that “the legislature has become Hong Kongized.”
Taiwan is not Hong Kong, and the impact of its political upheaval might extend beyond those seen in Hong Kong’s democratic decline. President William Lai (賴清德) or his premier can refuse to sign or promulgate these bills, and the Legislative Yuan can respond by casting a vote of no confidence to oust the premier. Such a stalemate would lead to a highly volatile political situation, causing further polarization and destruction of social solidarity. Frequently deemed a hotspot for the next major world war, if Taiwan undergoes serious political and social unrest, it certainly does not bode well for maintaining peace in the region.
What is equally worrisome is how these political challenges might affect the relationship between Taiwan and the US. Taiwan has been under increasing pressure to demonstrate its commitment to defending itself against China’s military aggression. This pressure is likely to grow even stronger once US president-elect Donald Trump takes office. Meanwhile, a segment of the Taiwanese public has expressed strong sentiments of “US skepticism,” supporting narratives such as “the US only wants to exploit Taiwan,” or “the US would definitely not send military support to assist Taiwan.”
With the new legal measures, the DPP government would be hard pressed to raise its national defense budget to the target of 5 percent of GDP. This could be interpreted by the US as Taiwan’s weakened resolve for self-defense, which would further strain the relationship between the two entities.
Indeed, some have speculated that the Beijing-friendly lawmakers have aimed to weaken Taiwan’s democracy and coerce Taiwan to accept China’s vision of world order. However, conspiracy theories do not help us find common ground. Instead, it is far more productive to scrutinize the policies themselves.
Several civic organizations and professional groups have expressed well-reasoned concerns about these new laws. More of us must take similar steps — sign a petition, write an op-ed or a letter to the editor, join a protest, or call the legislator representing your district.
Doing so would make it clear that policy considerations, not party affiliations, are the basis for the objections against these laws. It would signal to the KMT lawmakers that the people, not the DPP per se, want them to do better. This is the only way to de-escalate the dangerously contentious fight between the different branches of the government.
Taiwanese civil society must demand that opposition lawmakers — regardless of their majority — fulfill their duty to deliberate. They must reopen the dialogues that were bypassed in the Legislative Yuan last week.
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
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
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
RSS