President William Lai’s (賴清德) New Year’s Day speech covered much of the ground one would expect on such occasions. However, it was his comments on what is happening in the Legislative Yuan that were particularly more informative than his two previous major speeches, because of how specific he was.
He was clearly frustrated by the inability of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to get his administration’s agenda implemented and by the opposition’s attempts to jeopardize the nation’s constitutional order. He was not impressed either with DPP caucus leader Ker Chien-ming’s (柯建銘) recent comments on how to solve the impasse.
Lai has addressed the nation on three major occasions as president: his inaugural address on May 20 last year, his Double Ten National Day address on Oct. 10 last year and his speech on Wednesday last week.
During the inaugural address, coordination and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches were his first point. He said that the lack of an absolute majority for the governing party means the ruling and opposition parties are able to share their ideas, but that Taiwanese “have high expectations for rational governance among political parties.” He said that he had “high hopes” for “coordination between the executive and legislative branches.”
In the National Day speech, Lai was more focused on cross-strait issues, and even though the legislative chaos had already been going on for half a year, he kept his comments on the legislature brief, thanking Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) for pursuing cooperation among the ruling and opposition parties, and saying that national interests should take precedence over the interests of political parties.
Lai’s Jan. 1 address had a change in tone. Gone were the wishful platitudes about political parties working together for the good of the nation; instead he insisted on keeping “firm on the path of democracy” that had enabled Taiwan to make it through the “dark age of authoritarianism” and that “domestic political disputes must be resolved democratically, within the constitutional system.”
He spoke of how the Executive Yuan has the right to request a reconsideration of the controversial bills passed in the Legislative Yuan, and that Constitutional Court adjudication would ensure a separation of powers, safeguard constitutional order and consolidate the constitutional system. He also said Taiwanese have the right of recall and that the central government needed access to adequate financial resources.
Those were all direct references to bills forced through the legislature by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).
There is no doubt that Lai’s “high hopes” for reasonable coordination between the legislative and executive branches have been dashed and Taiwanese’s “high expectations for rational governance among political parties” have not been met.
Lai was specific about the opposition’s attempts to hobble the Constitutional Court and threaten constitutional order, his concerns about amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the need for a robust recall mechanism, which the KMT and TPP have weakened.
Lai is clearly frustrated by what is happening, and the DPP caucus’ call for Han and Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), both from the KMT, to step down is a mark of that frustration.
However, Ker’s “nuclear option” solution to dealing with the ruling party’s travails in the legislature — recalling all 41 of the KMT legislators — is not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic. It does not have the backing of his colleagues, and would not be what Lai means when he talks of hopes for the parties working together in a rational way for the good of the nation.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS