The assault by former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker Lin Cheng-chieh (
The incident heightens concerns over whether next month's anti-Chen sit-in led by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (
DPP supporters plan to travel to the sit-in to oppose the anti-Chen protesters. The already frosty feelings between the two camps have deteriorated as a result of weeks of renewed mud-slinging. There is, as always, the potential for things to get out of control.
Shih and his followers have a perfect right to express their opinion on these matters. But why does a 24-hour sit-in need to last weeks instead of a few days? Shih has said that the purpose of his rally is not just to make a point. Rather, it is to achieve a specific result that he and his supporters feel is necessary -- Chen's resignation.
This issue is therefore about a lot more than protecting the freedom of speech of Shih and his supporters. The question begs itself: What makes Shih and his supporters so special that much of a capital city's government district should come to a standstill for so long and the spirit of the Constitution be trampled on to entertain his and their demands?
No matter how one justifies the sit-in in ideological or administrative terms, this action at the end of the day is a form of political coercion, not a phase of spirited debate. What happens when Chen does not resign? Will Shih pack up his things and go home, or will he continue to use mass mobilization to encourage the ignoring of democratic processes?
It is the duty of city officials to approve and reject the nature and time of a rally. In this case, has Taipei City adequately weighed up all of these factors to reach a balanced decision that protects freedom of speech and the interests of the city and the nation?
This is an open question, and it is disturbing that the correctness of the decision depends so much on events that are yet to take place.
As Taipei mayor and open supporter of the protest, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
So many of us seem to refuse to compromise on matters in a manner that we demand of others. This is especially the case with those who trumpet their self-righteousness to the public.
And those who dare to disagree are not just expressing a dissenting opinion; they are absolutely wrong and become objects of hatred and resentment.
The prevalence of this attitude indicates a lack of maturity within and the volatile nature of this nation's democracy. The rivalry between different groups in this country feeds off this extremism, and this is cause for concern for those who hope that a more stable common ground can be built up for the benefit of all citizens.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS