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.
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