One day after President William Lai (賴清德) was sworn in, tens of thousands of citizens gathered outside the Legislative Yuan, as legislators held a highly contentious session inside the building. Protesters decried the two major opposition parties — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), whose combined seats in the legislature outnumber that of Lai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — for sponsoring several bills that are widely viewed as unconstitutional, financially and environmentally unsustainable or a threat to privacy rights.
Equally objectionable in the eyes of many civic groups was the disregard for due process, as the bills were rushed through the legislature without sufficient discussion or bipartisan negotiations, and legislators were allowed to vote anonymously so that they could avoid accountability during the next election.
Many described the civil unrest as the new Sunflower movement, referencing the student movement that took place 10 years ago at the same site for similar reasons.
However, academics and veteran activists have warned that the current KMT-TPP sponsored bills would have a greater and more destructive impact on Taiwan’s democracy than the proposed trade deal with China being opposed in 2014.
One proposal would allow the legislature to punish government officials, legal persons and private citizens that fail to hand over documents by finding them in “contempt of the legislature” and/or imposing exorbitant fines. Grave concerns about the overreach of the legislative branch has worried and angered many.
Ironically, the placards of many protesters read: “I hold the legislature in contempt” as KMT and TPP legislators were poised to pass their “contempt of the legislature” bills.
Taiwanese must indeed express their anger at the Legislative Yuan, as KMT and TPP legislators have abandoned their civic duties.
Yale University sociologist Jeffrey Alexander says that, while campaign speeches and performances are often intensely partisan and even ugly, successful democracies must maintain cultural rituals and institutional procedures to ensure that partisan struggles, no matter how intense, work to strengthen, not derail, democracy.
Thus, the winners give acceptance speeches to honor their competitors and reaffirm nonpartisan commitment to the people, while the losers concede elections and vow to support the people’s chosen candidates.
Political parties commit to following and protecting common democratic procedures even as they pursue ideologically divergent goals, and government officials are obligated to follow the law and serve the people, above and beyond party interests.
If this sounds mundane, it is worth remembering that these civic virtues were put to an extreme test in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election in the US. Donald Trump became the first US president not to attend his successor’s inauguration since 1869, which exacerbated rather than healed the social rifts caused by the election.
In their latest dangerous and detestable violations of their civic duties, KMT and TPP legislators are endangering Taiwan’s democracy for the sake of partisan goals. Many of them opted to boycott Lai’s inauguration on Monday. They then contravened democratic processes to pursue legislation. Their sponsored bills have raised many eyebrows regarding whether they are meant to serve political parties or the populace.
Throughout, these legislators have been repeating the mantra “democracy means the minority obeys the majority.” Therein lies the reason for the people to hold the legislature in contempt, for democracy must not be reduced to merely counting votes.
Stripped of the separation of powers, substantive policy evaluation and the protection of civil liberties, liberal democracies face the danger of degenerating into illiberal democracies. This is the path onto which KMT and TPP legislators are pushing Taiwan.
That is why the people of Taiwan must hold the legislature in contempt until further notice.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of Sociology at the University of California-Davis, whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
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