President William Lai’s (賴清德) New Year’s Day speech covered much of the ground one would expect on such occasions. However, it was his comments on what is happening in the Legislative Yuan that were particularly more informative than his two previous major speeches, because of how specific he was.
He was clearly frustrated by the inability of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to get his administration’s agenda implemented and by the opposition’s attempts to jeopardize the nation’s constitutional order. He was not impressed either with DPP caucus leader Ker Chien-ming’s (柯建銘) recent comments on how to solve the impasse.
Lai has addressed the nation on three major occasions as president: his inaugural address on May 20 last year, his Double Ten National Day address on Oct. 10 last year and his speech on Wednesday last week.
During the inaugural address, coordination and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches were his first point. He said that the lack of an absolute majority for the governing party means the ruling and opposition parties are able to share their ideas, but that Taiwanese “have high expectations for rational governance among political parties.” He said that he had “high hopes” for “coordination between the executive and legislative branches.”
In the National Day speech, Lai was more focused on cross-strait issues, and even though the legislative chaos had already been going on for half a year, he kept his comments on the legislature brief, thanking Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) for pursuing cooperation among the ruling and opposition parties, and saying that national interests should take precedence over the interests of political parties.
Lai’s Jan. 1 address had a change in tone. Gone were the wishful platitudes about political parties working together for the good of the nation; instead he insisted on keeping “firm on the path of democracy” that had enabled Taiwan to make it through the “dark age of authoritarianism” and that “domestic political disputes must be resolved democratically, within the constitutional system.”
He spoke of how the Executive Yuan has the right to request a reconsideration of the controversial bills passed in the Legislative Yuan, and that Constitutional Court adjudication would ensure a separation of powers, safeguard constitutional order and consolidate the constitutional system. He also said Taiwanese have the right of recall and that the central government needed access to adequate financial resources.
Those were all direct references to bills forced through the legislature by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).
There is no doubt that Lai’s “high hopes” for reasonable coordination between the legislative and executive branches have been dashed and Taiwanese’s “high expectations for rational governance among political parties” have not been met.
Lai was specific about the opposition’s attempts to hobble the Constitutional Court and threaten constitutional order, his concerns about amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the need for a robust recall mechanism, which the KMT and TPP have weakened.
Lai is clearly frustrated by what is happening, and the DPP caucus’ call for Han and Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), both from the KMT, to step down is a mark of that frustration.
However, Ker’s “nuclear option” solution to dealing with the ruling party’s travails in the legislature — recalling all 41 of the KMT legislators — is not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic. It does not have the backing of his colleagues, and would not be what Lai means when he talks of hopes for the parties working together in a rational way for the good of the nation.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS