As the public knows, during legislative questioning of government officials, it is not a matter of whose position is “above” or “below,” or who is more important. What matters is whether the exchanges involve genuine questions with genuine answers, genuine questions with evasive answers, evasive questions with evasive answers or evasive questions with genuine answers.
Of course, genuine questions with genuine answers is the best possible outcome. Officials who answer genuine questions with evasive answers deserve criticism.
Evasive questions with evasive answers signal that both sides are shirking their public duties. Evasive questions with genuine answers reveal laziness or guilt on the part of the questioning legislator.
The exchange between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) and Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) on Tuesday last week — as the questioning and responding parties respectively — regarding the Sept. 23 Mataian River (馬太鞍) barrier lake overflow disaster in Hualien County’s Guangfu Township (光復) is a classic example of evasive questions met with genuine answers.
Fu said: “The central government had no proper evacuation plan — this was a human-caused disaster,” to which Cho replied, “The planning and implementation of evacuations are, of course, the responsibility of local governments.”
Disaster response tasks are clearly divided between the central and local authorities. For someone who previously served as Hualien County commissioner, Fu’s ignorance of the fact that evacuation is the duty of local authorities is either shameless posturing or evidence of his utter negligence during his term. That he even dares to shift the responsibility for local evacuation plans onto the central government is absolutely ridiculous.
Fu then asked, “Where is the evacuation plan for 8,600 people?”
Cho, in addition to reiterating that evacutations fall under the responsibilities of local governments, provided further details: “At 8am on the morning of Sept. 22, Mr. Chiu (邱) of the Guangfu Township civil affairs department said that evacuations would start at 1pm and be completed before nightfall.”
Cho’s statement provided evidence of the personnel, time and location. “Mr. Chiu” is presumably a member of Hualien County Commissioner Hsu Chen-wei’s (徐榛蔚) team. Cho used the testimony of a Hualien County Government worker as evidence against Fu. In the end, Fu’s feigned ignorance only exposed his own weakness.
Seeing that he could not gain an advantage on that front, Fu asked, “Who is responsible for disaster relief?”
Cho responded: “The local coordinating authority at the scene is responsible for disaster relief,” which gave Fu an opening to quip, “Thank you, Premier Cho, for finally speaking the truth.”
However, he was immediately shut down by Cho’s sharp retort: “It was due to the local government’s inefficiency that the central government had to take over completely” — a slap in the face for Fu.
In the end, Fu had no choice but to fall back on the Republic of China (ROC) trademark and ask, “Does the ROC no longer have a central government?”
Cho, calm and unperturbed, shot back: “There is a central government, but there is no local government — there is no Hualien County Government.”
The premier’s parting line to Fu, “We are concerned with saving lives — only you are concerned with saving your political career,” was the perfect counter.
As a Confucian-inspired saying goes, “One is humiliated by others always because one has brought humiliation upon oneself first.” The back-and-forth between Cho and Fu in the legislative chamber teaches an important lesson — during questioning, both parties can and should respect each other. They should not attempt to blur the lines of accountability, or they risk neglecting their duties and losing the public’s respect.
Fu and Hsu bungled the disaster relief efforts, failed to acknowledge their mistakes and even tried to shift the blame onto the central government. By contrast, the usually mild-mannered and humble Cho responded to the challenge bravely, using facts and reason, tearing off his opponent’s mask — an example deserving of praise.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS