The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) are colluding in the legislature, creating a reality resembling a train racing down the tracks at full speed, with the passengers bound and gagged as ransomed hostages.
The opposition parties appear intent on upsetting the total operations of the government, demanding that everything from personnel affairs to budgeting go through them first.
They will not accept any other proposals: It is their way or nothing. They want to keep barreling forward, and they are not going to slam on the brakes anytime soon.
The people in the engine room might fear that suddenly hitting the brakes would cause the train to derail. Maybe they forgot there is a kill switch right next to them, but they dare not use it. Thus, their response is to hope that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) minority in the legislature could use rational communication to implore those at the helm to respect the “rules of the game,” “put safety first” and “consider the concerns of the majority.”
The problem with such responses is that the bad actors who have so easily stormed the train conductor’s cabin have revealed their shamelessness. They believe that “good things will happen only so long as all things are chaotic.”
Consequently, when moral and ethical persuasion fall upon deaf ears and indifference; when benevolence and conciliation run abreast of increasing aggravation and a ravenous desire for power; when idealistic dialogue runs up against brutal raw despotism; when there is no rationalism to clean up the mess; and when forbearance is seen as a weakness and becomes sustenance for wreaking havoc, the KMT and TPP, in their polarized confrontation, become a force that might determine the demise or survival of Taiwan’s democracy.
The opposition parties need to be reckoned with directly if Taiwanese want democracy to survive. People cannot shirk away, as it is only a matter of time. Without a direct confrontation, the public’s will could become the final arbiter in judging who is right or wrong in this situation. What other means do people have?
Viewing the relationship between the executive branch and the opposition-ruled legislature as a magnified version of the relationship between county and municipal governments, how could President William Lai (賴清德) not be a moving and inspiring figure as he was as former Tainan mayor? It was then that he confronted former Tainan city council speaker Lee Chuan-chiao (李全教), convicted of vote-buying, by refusing to allow corruption to ruin the local government’s integrity by standing up to city “audits” and “inquiries.”
What an excellent example Lai has set. Even after moving from the role of mayor to president, he should have no reason not to expand his integrity and anti-corruption efforts, to take a stand against the legislature’s unbridled despotism.
As for copying Kaohsiung residents — who after finally having enough of his antics, recalled their then-mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), now the legislative speaker — recalling the opposition legislators who are acting against the public good could spread far and wide into a nationwide democratic movement. Who is to say it could not happen?
Most importantly is whether the executive branch misinterprets the saying of “playing host without creating a scene” as ignoring bad guests causing a stir around them. If the DPP adopts strict neutrality while civic groups are in the middle of running recall motions without getting all hands on deck and providing ample financial resources to those efforts, and instead watches from the sidelines with arms folded, ostensibly to avoid dirtying their hands from fighting corruption or perhaps to avoid looking inelegant while doing so, then such an image of virtuous inaction would make the DPP appear unserious in the legislature. That might end up being their just deserts.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Tim Smith
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