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
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
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS