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
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
RSS