Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Brian Hioe
THE ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY UNION, one of the primary coordinating groups of the Bluebird Movement, has sought to call attention to upcoming legislation advanced by the KMT that could prove dangerous to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
First is an attempt by the KMT to freeze Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, requiring a quorum of 2/3rd of all justice seats, rather than just those justices that are presently appointed. Namely, eight Constitutional Court justices will retire in October, as a result of which the court will not have a full slate of justices. As the KMT is expected to dig its heels in and try to prevent the appointment of any new justices through the legislature, if it is successful in passing such laws and then preventing the appointment of any new justices, this could result in the freezing of the Constitutional Court and its inability to make any rulings.
The KMT continues with attempts to override democratic institutions in Taiwan, with this de facto being an attempt to block the operation of the judicial branch of government. To begin with, the KMT attempting to arrogate new powers to the Taiwanese legislature that normally belong to the judicial or the executive branches of government including the legislative powers protested by the Bluebird Movement earlier this year is because while the KMT views itself as still able to win legislative elections, it does not view itself as necessarily able to win the presidency. Now, the KMT is attempting to rid itself of the judiciary, particularly seeing as the Constitutional Court would potentially rule against the KMT’s efforts to accrue new powers to the legislature in violation of the fundamental separation of powers.
Bluebird Movement demonstration in May. Photo credit: Brian Hioe
Second, then, are legislative moves from the KMT aimed at requiring that national security strategy needs to be deliberated by the legislature after being approved by the president and premier. While in other contexts, this might allow for greater transparency into defense, as the pro-China party in Taiwanese politics, the KMT is expected to try and block military spending. The bill is also understood as a means by which the KMT is seen as trying to divorce the president from authority over national security matters and instead arrogate this to the KMT.
Indeed, similarly, the KMT is attempting to shift authority for establishing restricted maritime areas from the military to the Ocean Affairs Council. While the claim is that this would dial back rising tensions with China in the outlying islands of Taiwan, as well as improve civilian oversight over the military, in reality, the KMT is attempting to move powers from an institution it views itself as having relatively less control over to one that it sees itself as more able to influence. Generally speaking, it proves ironic for the KMT to claim there is a need to expand civilian oversight regarding the military when historically it depended on military rule to maintain political control of Taiwan.
Lastly, the KMT also currently aims to lower the period of residency for Chinese spouses to obtain permanent residency in Taiwan. The KMT aims to increase the number of Chinese spouses of Taiwanese in Taiwan, with the view that this is a group that will act as a political bloc in favor of it. Either way, the KMT has also yoked much of the debates around Taiwan’s immigration policy to the issue of Chinese spouses, refusing to budge on the issue of lowering residency period for other nationalities unless this is also lowered for Chinese spouses.
Even if the KMT’s attempts to freeze the Constitutional Court came up at the end of the previous wave of Bluebird Movement activity, this occurred too late to become the core issue for mobilization. Yet it is possible that moves by the KMT to target Taiwan’s defense policy provoke more widespread outrage.
This would, in effect, dovetail the domestic and cross-strait trajectories of the Bluebird Movement. Namely, the Bluebird Movement demonstrations often framed the KMT’s actions as not only a throwback to past eras of authoritarianism but as acting at China’s behest. At the same time, Chinese military drills that took place in a similar timeframe to the protests did not necessarily come up in the protests, a way that the sense of threat from China largely was registered through the KMT’s actions, or a framing by which the KMT was seen as a proxy for China. The issue of military budgets, however, links together both threads. As such, it may not be surprising if this is the next issue fought about in the legislature during the upcoming legislative session–potentially in a manner that leads to further protests.