The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) are colluding in the legislature, creating a reality resembling a train racing down the tracks at full speed, with the passengers bound and gagged as ransomed hostages.
The opposition parties appear intent on upsetting the total operations of the government, demanding that everything from personnel affairs to budgeting go through them first.
They will not accept any other proposals: It is their way or nothing. They want to keep barreling forward, and they are not going to slam on the brakes anytime soon.
The people in the engine room might fear that suddenly hitting the brakes would cause the train to derail. Maybe they forgot there is a kill switch right next to them, but they dare not use it. Thus, their response is to hope that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) minority in the legislature could use rational communication to implore those at the helm to respect the “rules of the game,” “put safety first” and “consider the concerns of the majority.”
The problem with such responses is that the bad actors who have so easily stormed the train conductor’s cabin have revealed their shamelessness. They believe that “good things will happen only so long as all things are chaotic.”
Consequently, when moral and ethical persuasion fall upon deaf ears and indifference; when benevolence and conciliation run abreast of increasing aggravation and a ravenous desire for power; when idealistic dialogue runs up against brutal raw despotism; when there is no rationalism to clean up the mess; and when forbearance is seen as a weakness and becomes sustenance for wreaking havoc, the KMT and TPP, in their polarized confrontation, become a force that might determine the demise or survival of Taiwan’s democracy.
The opposition parties need to be reckoned with directly if Taiwanese want democracy to survive. People cannot shirk away, as it is only a matter of time. Without a direct confrontation, the public’s will could become the final arbiter in judging who is right or wrong in this situation. What other means do people have?
Viewing the relationship between the executive branch and the opposition-ruled legislature as a magnified version of the relationship between county and municipal governments, how could President William Lai (賴清德) not be a moving and inspiring figure as he was as former Tainan mayor? It was then that he confronted former Tainan city council speaker Lee Chuan-chiao (李全教), convicted of vote-buying, by refusing to allow corruption to ruin the local government’s integrity by standing up to city “audits” and “inquiries.”
What an excellent example Lai has set. Even after moving from the role of mayor to president, he should have no reason not to expand his integrity and anti-corruption efforts, to take a stand against the legislature’s unbridled despotism.
As for copying Kaohsiung residents — who after finally having enough of his antics, recalled their then-mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), now the legislative speaker — recalling the opposition legislators who are acting against the public good could spread far and wide into a nationwide democratic movement. Who is to say it could not happen?
Most importantly is whether the executive branch misinterprets the saying of “playing host without creating a scene” as ignoring bad guests causing a stir around them. If the DPP adopts strict neutrality while civic groups are in the middle of running recall motions without getting all hands on deck and providing ample financial resources to those efforts, and instead watches from the sidelines with arms folded, ostensibly to avoid dirtying their hands from fighting corruption or perhaps to avoid looking inelegant while doing so, then such an image of virtuous inaction would make the DPP appear unserious in the legislature. That might end up being their just deserts.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Tim Smith
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
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
RSS