The Council of Grand Justices last Friday declared the National Communications Commission (NCC) unconstitutional, citing Article 4 of the Organic Law of the National Communications Commission (
Article 4 stipulates that commission members be selected according to the ratio of seats held by each political party in the legislature. While the article says that the commission should be composed of 13 members with either an academic background or practical experience in the fields of telecommunications, information technology, broadcasting, law, finance and economics, there are no restrictions regarding party affiliation.
Despite last Friday's ruling, the commission's nine remaining members decided on Monday to stay in office until Jan. 31, 2008, saying that if they quit now "it would be like leaving the engine of the NCC revving in neutral."
Commission Chairman Su Yeong-ching (
When the Cabinet first appealed the matter to the Council of Grand Justices, the commission members said they would resign if the justices ruled the agency unconstitutional. Why don't they have the backbone now to stick to that pledge? It was apparent from the very beginning that political interests would inevitably creep into the commission given the way it was set up.
Has the quality of the media environment or the quality of reporting improved since the commission commenced operations?
Instead, the only notable "accomplishment" of the commission to date was its speedy action against pirate radio stations in southern Taiwan early last month, after these stations reportedly aired malicious remarks against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Did the commission, however, say a word when media outlets reported what could be construed as threatening comments by Ma against President Chen Shui-bian (
The grand justices said that there should be a "grace period" before the commission is dissolved. This will pacify those who argue that the telecommunications and broadcasting industries would have no one to monitor them. But the chances are slim that the legislature will be able to revise the law and provide an oversight agency in a timely and rational manner, given the reaction of the KMT caucus to Monday's ruling.
The KMT caucus condemned Minister Without Portfolio Hsu Chih-hsiung (
In a normal democracy, the legislature would, upon being told by the nation's highest constitutional court that one of its laws was in error, quickly act to review and revise that regulation.
Taiwan's democracy is anything but normal and it would appear that the public has months of childish behavior from opposition parties to look forward to, while the NCC drifts in limbo until the current terms of the nation's lawmakers end in January 2008.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS