A copy editor asks: "Why is this National Assembly so often referred to as the `mission oriented' National Assembly?"
The short answer to this question is that in the past the assembly convened once a year whether it had anything on its agenda or not -- and it usually didn't. Its purpose seemed to be to allow a lot of old politicians, many of whom lived in the US, to enjoy an all expenses paid trip back to Taiwan, where they were paid handsomely for listening to a report or two. They usually managed to make this activity last a month. So what makes this assembly "mission oriented" is that it has been convened expressly to accomplish a particular task.
That doesn't mean that previous assemblies didn't accomplish anything. They were super efficient at voting all kinds of perks and pay raises for themselves, to such an extent that the usual adjectival phrase that accompanied the institution's name was "self-fattening." Then there was the "10,000 Year Assembly" which was elected in China in 1948 and sat in Taiwan until 1992, and whose members were known as the "old thieves." They were eventually replaced by a locally elected body so rapacious its members were known as the "young thieves."
All of this goes to explain quite adequately why the assembly that will convene on Monday is also being called the "functional" National Assembly. Others were totally dysfunctional, at least in terms of fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities -- cash cows though they were for their delegates.
This little look at history should explain to the uninitiated just why this country is in such a hurry to get rid of its second chamber. It is almost fitting that the last days of the assembly's existence should be marred by controversy. And it is typical of the current situation in this country that the controversy revolves around a flip-flop by the ruling party, and a veteran democracy activist who doesn't seem to understand the way democracies sometimes work.
There is little point in reiterating former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung's (
It was suggested in the mid-1990s, for example, that the president should have to be elected with a clear majority, necessitating a run off if there were more than two candidates. Such a measure would probably have prevented Chen Shui-bian (
Lin argues that supermajorities are undemocratic. But their point is that they force different sides to negotiate and reach a consensus acceptable to all on very delicate issues. That is not a bad thing.
Since this is the last National Assembly, such arguments are almost moot. But it is hard not to ponder whether more intelligent constitutional reform could have refashioned the assembly in a useful way, rather than simply abolishing it.
There is a crying need for a reduction in ethnic strife and some thought might have been given to creating a body in which representatives of the four main groups could sit in numerical parity -- someone will complain that this is not democratic, but then, in the same sense, neither is the US Senate -- as a monitor of legislation and an arbiter of disputes. Surely something more is needed than the Legislative Yuan.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS