Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: TPP/Facebook
WITH THE DEFEAT of the “Great Recall Movement” last week, some have asked the question of whether the DPP and KMT will seek to make amends. After all, it now seems clear that the pan-Green camp will not be able to oust the KMT from the legislature.
When asking this question, it should be remembered that it is the KMT and its ally, the TPP, that have taken on a scorched earth approach to Taiwanese politics, rather than the DPP. Certainly, the KMT has sought to depict the DPP as engaged in scorched earth tactics through organizing the recalls–which it did not do, seeing as the recalls were organized by civic actors angered by the KMT’s actions. But it is the KMT, voting with the TPP, that froze Taiwan’s Constitutional Court, carried out the largest set of budget cuts in Taiwanese history, and tried to drastically expand legislative power at the expense of the executive and judicial branches of government– not the DPP.
However, as recalls had never before happened in Taiwanese history, it has been questioned if even after their failure, they could prove a warning to the pan-Blue to halt the course of action that had so outraged the public. Other views were that the pan-Blue camp would renew the legislative offenses that it had temporarily halted in the past months because it needed to fend off the recalls.
Yet, a taste of what is to come is evident in a four-point legislative proposal by the TPP. The TPP seeks to pass legislative proposals Premier Cho Jung-tai be officially rebuked for seeking to undermine other branches of government, that Cho deliver a list of nominees for top positions of the National Communications Commission (NCC) to the legislature for confirmation, that Joseph Wu should resign as National Security Council chair, and that DPP legislative caucus leader be investigated for comments about Legislative Yuan president Han Kuo-yu and threats with a walking stick, which Ker has responded to that this was hitting a desk with his walking stick to make a point.
The TPP’s proposals, which were probably crafted by party chair Huang Kuo-chang, prove a rehash of the KMT’s controversial legislative powers. For example, these proposals aim to assert legislative power over Taiwan’s national security apparatus and media regulatory body.
The KMT previously called for appointments on the National Communications Commission to be divided up between parties in the legislature on the basis of proportional representation, then froze it in much the same manner as the Constitutional Court. Likewise, the KMT previously called for reviving the Special Investigation Division of the legislature and shifting control of the body to the legislature, rather than the Ministry of Justice, shifting certain security powers from the executive to the legislature, as well as authority over designating restricted maritime waters away from the military and to the Ocean Affairs Council, which is subject to the authority of KMT-controlled local governments.
More broadly, one sees an attempt to shift powers over national security and media regulation to the legislature, which the TPP’s proposal also attempts to do by calling for Wu’s negotiation and requiring that NCC appointments be approved by the legislature. But the attempt would be to preempt the criticism that this is undermining Taiwan’s system of checks and balances by accusing Cho Jung-tai of doing the same.
The attempt to expand legislative powers that prompted the Bluebird Movement last year specifically involved allowing the legislature to have new powers of investigation to summon individuals for questioning and impose drastic fines for “reverse questioning,” understood to mean speaking back to legislators. The fear was that the powers would be used to silence criticism, as well as to make show trials out of DPP officials and public figures. When the powers were pushed for by the legislature, the pan-Blue camp sought to open investigations into egg imports by the Tsai administration during shortages that Taiwan saw, the NCC’s approval of Mirror TV’s broadcast license, and domestic COVID-19 vaccine development.
One sees similar efforts with the attempt to call for an investigation into Ker for wrongdoing then. Clearly, the attempt to have a public spectacle of Ker being investigated, which the pan-Blue camp could use to rally their base, and build momentum for targeting other pan-Green politicians.
It is noteworthy that this new offensive comes from the TPP rather than the KMT. This is a powerful argument against the claim that the TPP was a restraining force on the KMT regarding the pan-Blue camp’s controversial initiatives in the last two years. On the contrary, the TPP publicly sided with the KMT on all of these initiatives and, unlike the KMT, its legislators are all voted in by the basis of party vote and cannot be recalled. If the TPP has struggled to differentiate its brand from the KMT because of it aligning so closely with the larger pan-Blue party through the course of these initiatives. Perhaps it is even seeking to distinguish itself now through a more proactive, aggressive role against the DPP relative to the KMT, in line with how its party base consists of members of the pan-Blue camp who feel strongly angered by the DPP.