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
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this
RSS