The brouhaha in the Legislative Yuan on Wednesday during the review of the proposed referendum law, complete with name-calling, flag-waving and the melodramatic passing out of DPP lawmaker Hsu Jung-shu (
As a country that holds elections within abnormally short intervals, people have become used to seeing politicians speaking about their respect for the "popular will" to the point of tears. Next time any legislator tries to gain sympathy votes with this act, first check out whether he or she has lived up to those words during Wednesday's review session.
The bill, proposed by DPP lawmaker Trong Chai (
The fear of the PFP and KMT lawmakers, which eventually successfully blocked review of the bill with their majority in the Home and Nations Committee, was that the said bill, if enacted, would be used to change the name, national flag or national anthem of this country or, to put it in their own words, "to accomplish Taiwan independence."
Unfortunately, there are several major problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, the independent sovereignty of this country is already a fact beyond dispute. So, unless they are delusional enough to think that Taiwan is part of China and they are lawmakers of the PRC, the issue of Taiwan independence is really moot.
Perhaps they simply have a distaste for the name "Taiwan," the name they suspect that the pan-green is plotting to adopt for this country once the said proposed law is enacted. Perhaps we should feel sorry for people so conflicted they can't bear to hear the name of the place where they live. Be that as it may, if they have any respect for the democratic process, they should surely only approve of a law that deepens democracy by allowing people a more direct say in their own affairs.
And with this in mind, if a majority of people did vote in a referendum to change the name, national flag or national anthem, how dare these lawmakers stand in the way of the people's clearly expressed will. But it goes beyond this. It is not just a matter of democratic principle but people's constitutional right. Article 17 of the Constitution, which states that "The people shall have the right of election, recall, initiative and referendum." The former refers to the right of the people, upon obtaining a sufficient number of endorsements, to initiate and submit bill for plebiscites. The latter refers to the right of the people to approve or reject bills proposed by the Legislative Yuan through plebiscites.
We could also point out that the version of the bill being reviewed had been seriously watered down, specifically prohibiting voting on "national orientation issues," such as such as the country's boundaries, formal title and national anthem. Yet, the opposition lawmakers continue to claim that the passage of the bill would mean the end of the "ROC." Basically there is no logic to this behavior and we can only hope that people will show their disapproval of such stupidity at the polls.
Other reasons cited by the opposition lawmakers included concerns on the part of the US and the objections of China. In terms of former, since when have the typically anti-American opposition lawmakers cared about the attitude of the US? In fact, it was during that very same review session that a PFP lawmaker shouted "long live Iraq." As for the latter reason, perhaps they are forgetting that they are still ROC lawmakers, not yet the PRC functionaries they so earnestly desire to become.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS