Following the ruckus last month in which the government took the public and the legislature by surprise with its sudden announcement that it was lifting a ban on US bone-in beef imports, the government did it again on Monday night: It blitzed the public and lawmakers with a declaration that it had signed a financial memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China.
Both dealings followed an extremely disturbing pattern, in which government officials by day appeared all ears at public hearings and legislative meetings, saying they were interested in gathering input from the public and lawmakers before they would proceed with the issues they had at hand — only to have the government announce deals sealed in black and white later the same night.
These two incidents highlighted not just the degree to which the government holds the public and the legislature in contempt, but also accentuated President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) and Premier Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) lack of credibility. Prior to Monday, Ma and Wu had repeatedly said that the contents of the planned MOU would be submitted to the legislature for review and that the government would conduct negotiations in accordance with “the guiding principle of pursuing the public’s support and the legislature’s oversight” before signing the MOU.
It says much about the government’s regard for public support and legislative scrutiny that officials found themselves needing to make guarded dealings at night, shying away from broad daylight.
Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Sean Chen (陳冲) said both sides exchanged signed documents at 6pm on Monday. If the MOU had met with public approval and passed lawmakers’ appraisal as the president and the premier had promised, wouldn’t it have been a celebratory matter? Wouldn’t the government have held a press conference early in the morning with festive aplomb, instead of releasing a public announcement on the inking of the MOU at a press conference at a time when most government agencies closed for the day?
From the opaque manner in which the government conducted negotiations with other countries in the recent US beef and MOU talks and the way in which it ambushed its people with sudden announcements after the fact, it would come as no surprise if we were to wake up one day to find that the government had already signed an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China despite the lack of domestic consensus on the matter.
Public discourse and debate on issues that pertain to public welfare and national interests is an essential feature in a democracy. Regrettably, as is evident from the government’s recent displays of arrogant obliviousness to public opinion and legislative oversight in its dealings on matters of great importance to the public’s welfare and interests, it appears that one-party dominance, about which many have expressed concern, is slowly taking hold, with the legislature becoming ineffective in its role of keeping the executive branch in check.
Taiwan’s democracy has been lauded by many, at home and abroad, including by Ma himself. It is hoped that the next chapter of Taiwan’s success story would not have an unfortunate twist in which the government conceals an autocratic character by means of a pseudo-democratic cover.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS