The new legislature has reported for work and will face high public expectations. Both major parties have pledged to work for legislative reforms and sunshine legislation, but how much effort they put toward such reforms remains to be seen.
Citizen Congress Watch (
Fifty-three of 81 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators chose not to sign and they were joined by eight of 27 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators. The five legislators that are members of neither the KMT nor the DPP also refused to sign. Despite many new faces in the legislature, outdated ideas still seem to dominate.
Last week, the State Public Prosecutor General's Office under the Supreme Court (
These cases are probably only the tip of the iceberg. The legislative profession is an occupation that offers access to diversified sources of income and high rewards.
Legislators often interact with interest groups in their legislative interpellations, when co-signing bills, making statements or blocking legislative bills. As long as the relationship is based on common ideals, this may not be an issue, but when money is involved -- whether in the form of political donations, campaign donations, activity sponsorships or administrative fees for assistants, offices or transportation -- there is a high risk of corruption.
If we don't regulate lobbying activities and political donations from interest groups, financially disadvantaged groups will find it difficult to make themselves heard. As the system stands, it is difficult to prevent wealthy interest groups from using money to dictate legislation to legislators -- or to block bills. The legislature therefore leans toward the interests of wealthy and influential groups instead of dealing with issues of social justice.
Legislators shouldn't pass the buck if regulations for donations to lawmakers are unclear, as they have intentionally ignored the issue.
Legislation that would clarify acceptable forms of lobbying and its relationship with political donations never makes it to the legislative floor because legislators feel that ambiguity facilitates lobbying. When indicted for corruption, ambiguous legislation is a lawmaker's best friend.
With the number of legislative seats cut by half, individual legislators have more influence over committees and the Cabinet and can exert more pressure on ministries. With new powers come new responsibilities, however. Without moral and behavioral guidelines concerning these new duties, intentional or unintentional violations of the law by legislators will continue.
The legislature's first task should be to eliminate these ambiguities. With clear rules, honest legislators can concentrate on their jobs, knowing where their actions stand legally. Corrupt legislators will also have a hard time getting off the hook.
Party caucuses should put this issue at the top of their list of priorities, and they should push to pass such regulations prior to the presidential election on March 22.
Their actions will help the public decide exactly who is committed to reform and who is merely trying to woo votes with empty promises.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
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
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in