Those who think that handing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) a two-thirds legislative majority (or a three-quarters majority if minor parties and independents come on board) is going to make the more aggressive members of the KMT more respectful of democratic processes and their underlying principles are in for a real shock.
This criticism may appear partisan, but it is not. Nor is it a gratuitous swipe at KMT leaders who have promised to treat the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) legislative minority with respect, which would be a welcome development.
Only weeks after the legislative elections, a number of KMT figures have dropped hints that the dramatic increase in their legislative presence will be used to stake a claim on powers that belong to the executive -- and even the average voter.
The latest of these signals comes from KMT caucus whip Kuo Su-chun (
Most people refused to take part in the referendums this month, and there is a real risk that ennui and partisan considerations will kill the UN referendums when they are held. Hence the maneuvering over achieving a result on the UN bid.
But referendum topics are not of concern here. What is chilling is Kuo's idea that a legislative resolution would somehow override the result of a referendum: The "legislature represents the latest will of the people," as she put it, as if the legislature were the only manifestation of public will in this country.
Kuo did not seem to appreciate that referendums take place with constitutional authority and that the legislature would precipitate a constitutional crisis if it attempted to obstruct the process of ordinary people to petition for a referendum, regardless of its political party-sponsor.
The issue is protecting the Constitution from predators, regardless of their office. The Constitution is a charter that belongs to the citizenry, not cliques of politicians, though this simple fact is clearly not respected by a large number of legislators.
Of late, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
But Ma is running for the same office whose fundamental authority he has eroded by failing -- in his time as party chairman -- to keep legislators such as Kuo in check when they overstepped the lines between self, party and national interest.
If Ma supports the dismantling of presidential powers, the diminishing of the public's referendum powers and the creation of a parliamentary system in which a Cabinet is made up of legislators, then he should say so.
But he has not said so. The next big thing in Taiwanese politics -- should Ma win the election -- will therefore be watching him defend the viability of the presidency as his newly empowered legislative colleagues encroach upon the powers of the executive, and by extension the Constitution.
It is an untenable position, yet any retaliation will not come from the DPP, which is weak and poorly organized. Instead, the fallout will take the form of bickering within the KMT machine; ongoing instability in executive-legislative relations; and public servants defending their fragile professionalism as legislators bury their snouts deeper into the trough.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS