On Thursday, the pan-blue-dominated legislature made many shocking and unprecedented cuts to the government's budget for this year. It is easy to see why some pan-green lawmakers are calling the budget cuts "retaliatory" in nature. A closer examination reveals that many of the cuts are not only often quite personal -- targeting specific individuals against whom the pan-blues hold a grudge -- but also have a very negative effect on the operation of the government. The only end being accomplished by the opposition is to teach the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government a lesson: The pan-blues are flexing their legislative muscle in an attempt to force the government to give in to its demand on issues in which the two camps do not see eye to eye. Behavior of this sort is completely irresponsible and unprofessional and should be condemned.
It came as no surprise that President Chen Shui-bian (
As if that were not enough, the legislature also demanded that the various special committees set up by the Presidential Office -- including the committees on human rights, science and technology, and constitutional reform, among others -- should be dissolved on the grounds that they have no legal basis. It should be well within the executive branch's power to set up these committees for consultation purposes. Furthermore, many of these committees were set up in accordance with the demands of the general public. Under the circumstances, the legislature can only be seen to be placing vengeance above all else.
The other two main targets were National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen (
At the end of the day, this country and its people will be the ones paying the real price, as the National Security Council cannot continue to function without funding.
As for Yao, he was "blacklisted" for repeatedly engaging in verbal arguments with pan-blue lawmakers. In addition to the major cuts made to many of the GIO minister's budgets, three-quarters of the GIO budget, excluding funds for utilities and personnel, is also being frozen.
One cannot help but wonder when this sort of childish behavior on the part of the legislature will cease. Don't the lawmakers know that every decision they make on the legislative floor has an impact on the well-being of the citizens of this country? If not, then they have no business being there. If so, they should learn to act in a more mature and responsible manner.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS