The "contempt of the Legislature" battle wasn't a difference of opinion -- the KMT was just wrong

I know this painting at New York's Whitney Museum has a name, but I prefer to call it "Speaker Han" (the photo is mine). 

As an American, I see a lot of re-framing battles over basic rights re-framed as mere "differences of opinion" -- as though the rights and freedoms that are foundational to democracy are as subject to personal interpretation as, say, pizza toppings. I've seen blatant power grabs dismissed as as mundane, non-threatening policy platforms. 

I was similarly dismayed to watch the KMT, handed the eensiest bit of power after eight years lost in the woods, engage in a similar power grab with its attempt to expand legislative powers -- dismayed, but not surprised. This is how the KMT are. It's in their party's DNA to consider themselves the rightful leaders for whom democracy is an annoying inconvenience. 

If you're thinking this is also one of the hallmarks of fascist ideology, well, yes -- it is. 

And yet, as in the US, the KMT's actions garnered a fair amount of defense, as though the majority coalition has the right to a naked power grab simply because they form a majority, and anything they do is just a different policy position. I watched TV news and various commentators deride the DPP for not understanding that they no longer control the legislature, as though they had no reason or right to oppose expanded legislative powers.

As it turns out, the Constitutional Court disagrees: most of the legislature's expanded powers were deemed unconstitutional. 

Here's a quick summary of the ruling: 

The president can give a "State of the Union" address -- which was always a non-binding right the president has had, so no surprise there. It's not typically done, although I've started thinking of the Double Ten speeches as performing a similar function, but it was always a possibility.

However, the legislature can neither compel the president to do so, nor demand a a specific time or date for such an address. They cannot require the president to undergo an immediate question-and-answer session.

Also kept intact was the legislature's right to conduct investigations. However, that was never really in question: in 2004, constitutional interpretation #585 outlined the investigative powers of the Legislative Yuan very clearly -- they have them, when such investigations pertain directly to matters under their purview. 

If the legislature wants to investigate a matter already being investigated by the Control Yuan, they must "enter into negotiations" with the Control Yuan to do so, and cannot interfere with powers given to other branches of government. 

Also thrown out was the idea of "contempt of the Legislature", which would have allowed the legislature to take on judicial powers, punishing anyone it found to be in "contempt" with fines. "Contempt" was poorly-defined, but included refusing to appear, refusing to answer questions (whether or not sensitive information such as matters of national security would be protected was left unclear), providing false answers (with the legislature again taking judicial powers to determine what would constitute a falsehood) or "counter-questioning".

Just about anyone could be called in for questioning, from government officials to military leaders to individuals. In theory, this included everyone in Taiwan. Quite possibly, it gave the legislators the right to drag in anyone they wanted, from TSMC C.C. Wei to a journalist whose writing they don't like, ask a bunch of questions, determine that several answers they didn't like were actually "false" and punish them with massive fines for each individual "falsehood". 

Some might call this interpretation of the law 'fearmongering', but it really was that shoddily written, and the courts clearly agree.

That's all gone now, which means that investigations opened under these expanded powers, such as the egg import "scandal" (there is no scandal) and Mirror Media will likely have to be halted.

I feel kinda bad for people who defended these laws as something within the KMT and TPP's rights, simply because they'd done well in an election, or calling the DPP "authoritarian" for opposing it. You know, as though any law the government passes is ethics-neutral or is acceptable simply because it passed.

If the Constitutional Court says they never had the right to expand legislative powers, then they never had the right. Defending their power grab was foolish -- it amounted to defending unconstitutional actions. Bad look. Not demure, not mindful. 

So, to everyone who insisted the KMT was acting within bounds and not going against the ROC constitution that they claim to hold so dear, I hate to say I told y....oh wait, no I don't. I freakin' love it. I told you so!

The DPP was right to put up a spectacular fight against it. On this matter, they were always right. That they are a legislative minority is irrelevant.

This specific battle seems to have been won, but it's unlikely that the fight is over. Back in September, the KMT began taking aim at the judicial system, first criticizing Lai's judicial appointees. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but calling judges "thugs" sounded a bit like, "nice branch of government you got there. It'd be a shame if, say, the legislature mucked that up." In other words, "you'd better not find our expanded powers unconstitutional or we'll make life hard for you."

Since July, they've been trying to push through reforms to the constitutional court. This is important because without an executive veto, the primary check on the legislature is that very court. (Meaning criticisms that the executive branch has too much power in Taiwan show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the balancing act works). 

These proposed changes would raise the number needed to reach a decision from half to two-thirds, based on the set number of 15 justices -- not the total number of incumbent justices (the actual number of sitting on the court may vary as judges step down or pass away). This would mean at least ten judges would need to be present to reach a decision, with seven in favor. 

However, seven justices are set to step down soon, and there is no mechanism for temporary appointees or term extensions. New judges are approved by the Legislative Yuan (a process few disagree with). If seven out of fifteen justices are stepping down, that leaves eight, not ten. The constitutional court would at that point be unable to function.

All the legislature has to do is refuse to confirm Lai's judicial nominees, and blammo! The constitutional court cannot issue rulings, and the legislature essentially has no check on its power.

The Judicial Reform Foundation has pointed out that proposing such reforms in the midst of a bruising battle over the legislature expanding its own powers is itself threatening behavior -- if you stop us, we'll bind and gag you. 

Like Americans who convince themselves that Trump's blatant fascism is just normal campaigning and Project 2025 wouldn't constitute a massive right-wing power grab, those who consider the Legislative Yuan's actions in Taiwan to be a part of normal democratic functioning are, well, deluded. And those who think the DPP are the power-grabbers are just full of themselves.

One more time at the legislature, with feeling

I don't have time to make this pretty, so let's talk about what's happening at the Legislative Yuan right now. 

After adjourning on Friday, not having passed the most controversial aspect of the legislative reform bill -- the "contempt of the Legslature" clause (clause? I don't have time to check) -- lawmakers were to re-convene today to finish discussing it.

"Contempt of the Legislature", if passed, would allow the legislature to drag just about anyone they want in for question-and-answer sessions, and they could be sent to court if the legislators don't like their answers. This is meant to criminalize lying to the legislature, concealing evidence, procrastinating or refusing to appear -- which seems reasonable, but isn't. More on that below, or just read my last post, or whatever you want in English. I probably won't cover it in full in this post. 

Today, thousands gathered at the Legislative Yuan to protest the bill yet again. Miao Poya (I mention her here and here) spoke to a crowd of about 3,000 this afternoon. By the time I arrived in the late afternoon, the crowd was clearly bigger than that, though I can't begin to estimate. It had gone well past the large tent cover set up in front of the main stage and was starting to spill onto Zhongshan Road. 

My friend's photo:



When I arrived, police buses ran down what I believe is Jinan Road (I didn't really check), and you could see people streaming toward the venue. I haven't seen a police presence like that in years, nor a protest big enough to warrant one. (Arguably no protest warrants one, but...discussion for another day). 

I saw a lot of old-school protest imagery: sunflowers, for the Sunflower Movement, the ubiquitous black t-shirts, teal-colored stickers, headbands that said "if the KMT doesn't fall, Taiwan won't be good" (國民黨不倒，台灣不會好 -- it sounds better in Mandarin) which might be new, or might have been dug out of retirement by former protesters. There were even pro-Hong Kong flags as well as several rainbow flags from the marriage equality rallies.

People were quite literally grabbing whatever they had at home from the past to join this protest. I'm sure once the stickers and t-shirts and bandannas and banners become available, there will be a cohesive design to it all, but remember, all the left-of-center protests of the past -- some labor protests excepted -- seem to follow a similar design language. It all works together. It's cohesive, and gives the element that in Taiwan, all of us with our various causes come out to support each other.



I say "us", but I really mean them. I can go, and chant, and stand in the rain, but I'm not Taiwanese. I'm there to support, I don't know what else I can do. Regardless, I love to see it. 

In fact, one of the speakers while I was there directly referenced Hong Kong, likening this bill and the method being used to pass it to the undemocratic processes that are now the norm in Hong Kong ever since the protests were quashed and pro-Beijing elements (I'd call them fascists but hey) took over. 



Of course, being a Taiwanese protest, there were chants calling to send back the bill, "Go Taiwan!" and "Go democracy!" (台灣加油，民主加油), "oppose the black box" (the tactics being used to pass the bill without anyone knowing what's in it is locally referred to as "black box" politics), "No discussion, no democracy" and at least one call for Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), the former Sunflower leader who is now colluding with pro-China elements and their assorted simps, to step down. I can't think of anyone whom the activist community reviles more today than that man.

Funeral-like flowers for the KMT:



While there, a speaker rallied the crowd by saying they'd grown to 12,000. I don't know if that's true -- upper estimates put it at 8,000 -- but it was quite a sight regardless, not something we've seen much of during Tsai's tenure and the DPP's legislative majority. Tsai also left office with a surprisingly high favorability rating, for Taiwan.

That could be because the DPP's general platforms -- with some imperfections -- are closer to the general consensus in Taiwan. It could be because the DPP legislature more or less did a competent job. It could be because KMT supporters simply lack the vim and vigor of sustained activism and protest. Most KMT protests seem to be oldsters bussed in and given a free lunchbox. 

These protesters were...not that. They are young, mostly, and they are angry. They remind me of the Sunflowers. If this is Taiwan's Gen Z, then the kids are going to be alright. 

Back to the protest: partway through my time in the crowd, it started pouring. People handed out free ponchos. I was given one, but got soaked anyway. Speakers asked the crowd to move forward as much as possible to get more people under the cover, and to use ponchos rather than umbrellas, which is smart in a crowd. People came through not long after to distribute drinking water. 

I love to see that sort of cooperative action in protests and movements. 

The rain only got worse, but here's the thing: not many people left. Of course, in any protest, especially one that spans hours, people will come and go over time. But I didn't see any substantial number of empty seats even when it really started to drench the crowd. Thunder boomed, but people stayed. Someone handed out a bunch of signs run on a printer and slipped into plastic covers. 

On the way to the protest I talked to an older man trying to park his bike. He said he was outside to support the Sunflowers a decade ago, and he's back again to stand up for democracy now. His daughter, he said, was already in the crowd. 

While we were getting utterly rain-blasted, I traded sorrowful looks with the woman next to me. Without prompting, she said, "this is democracy". She did not leave. Neither did I. 

I'm telling you, the kids are gonna be alright. 



My phone got soaked -- it currently won't charge with a cable -- my leather bag got soaked, my pants got soaked, my shoes got soaked. The ground beneath our feet turned into one massive puddle. Still, people stayed, I went to put my phone back in my bag, wet despite being under my ill-fitting poncho. A young man (early 20s?) used his plastic-covered sign to keep the rain off. 

At about 7pm, the session seemed to be still ongoing, with the DPP playing the old Sunflower anthem Island Sunrise. The KMT started raising patches of the ROC flag (which has the KMT emblem on it). 

I left when I started to genuinely worry about my phone, and was shivering from being soaked. I also happen to be sunburned from yesterday's inauguration, which is not a great combination. The woman who'd said "this is democracy" urged me to go, saying "health comes first" and there will be other chances to protest. 

At about 8pm, a friend of mine messaged me a bunch of photos -- one his, one from the protest's Line group -- showing the protest had spilled out into Zhongshan Road.  A verbal estimate put the crowd at over 15,000.

Here's the Line group photo:



So what's wrong with the bill? 

First, there's what it could mean. From Michelle Kuo on Twitter: 

China publishes a list of Taiwan independence activists, those legislators can summon them to be questioned. The [activists] can be fined from 20,000 NTD to NTD 200,000. This is written in article 25, the amendment they just passed. And that completely bypassed committee review.

 

From Chen Yen-han: 

The bill would give the LY power to summon essentially anyone and make them answer questions.

This is not necessarily bad. What is bad are the proposed criminal penalties when the LY deems someone’s answer a refusal or falsehood.

This would give a partisan coalition a monopoly on truth, which is very bad.

A minister who refuses to divulge classified information could, under the provisions of this bill, be punished.

There is at least one current MLY who leaked sensitive info on Taiwan’s defense programs.

You should also read this entire thread from Michael Turton. Here's a snippet:

We know what tactics they will follow because they've done that before. One way they will use this power is to subpoena local DPP politicians to again smear them and even better, toss a few in the clink...

The KMT can simply refuse to act on taiwan's defense by claiming their too busy with internal investigations. This will tie up the legislature for years. Further...they will investigate government ministers and bureaucrats hoping not only to interfere with the functions of government, but to bring to light information on government connections with other government and on defense and weapons programs....The subpoena powers can be used against Ordinary People. Members of the Foreign Press should recall the era of Visa denials of journalists. Under this law there's nothing to stop the legislature from subpeona-ing a foreign journalist whose coverage they do not like.

There's also a great Youtube video with English subtitles from Puma Shen, the activist and legislator who was pushed off a table and fell on his head on Friday.



 One of the biggest problems is that nobody really knows what's in the bill, as a last-minute version cobbled together from all proposed versions was not read out in full and not made available to legislators in time for the vote. This was apparently done by KMT caucus whip (and criminal, and sex pest) Fu Kun-chi, speaker Han Kuo-yu, and former Sunflower and New Power Party founder-turned-TPP supporter Huang Kuo-chang, who right now might be the most reviled of the three. Remember, he was once on the same side as the people out there protesting tonight, and now he's working with his former enemies and enemy-adjacent randos. (No, I will not attempt to phrase that more elegantly). 

Secondly, the KMT and TPP keep insisting that "substantive discussion" of the bill has taken place, and thus have ushered it to a vote. (There are also a bunch of infrastructure bills to be discussed, and nobody's talking about what might or might not be in those, so that's not good either). 



This is absolutely a lie, spearheaded by Huang Kuo-chang. The DPP was intentionally kept from participating in said 'substantive discussion', their own proposals dismissed before they could even be considered. Essentially, the KMT and TPP are railroading everything and calling it "democracy" because they have a thin majority coalition. 

The votes themselves are being done by a 'show of hands' rather than individual votes with names recorded. While this is technically a legal mechanism for voting, as far as I know, it's not typical and hasn't been used in Taiwan in decades. The KMT/TPP would insist that it's necessary as the DPP keeps blocking a more traditional vote. Apparently, the "show of hands" vote tallies keep getting messed up, which is extremely suspicious and unnerving. 

I'm not the only one who is likening this to Sunflowers 2.0 -- they protested black box politics too -- and the White Terror. And if something in Taiwan reminds you of the White Terror, well, that should be terrifying. 

Legislature erupts in chaos, the KMT still sucks, and the spark of fresh resistance

Lawmaker and activist Puma Shen gets pushed off a rostrum head-first by KMT opponents

First, I just want to acknowledge that I haven't been blogging very much. I know. I've had other writing projects, but beyond that work is both a challenge and a treadmill. By that I mean it both requires creative energy (fantastic) but also feels a bit insurmountable (not fantastic). At least I'm happy with where I am career-wise, which I wouldn't have said six months ago. 

I felt a bit knocked out of my blogging stupor on Friday, when a fight broke out in the Legislative Yuan over a proposed bill to expand the powers of said legislature. Not only is the bill deeply undemocratic, but the method by which the majority coalition -- they wouldn't call themselves a coalition, but they effectively are one -- attempted to pass it. 

The sum of it: the KMT, with the TPP as their lapdogs, are trying to pass a bill that would require the president to give an address before the Legislature every year, and be subject to immediate questioning after. More chillingly, it would expand the legislature's ability to conduct investigations -- they already have some authority, such as access to documents -- and introduce the concept of "contempt of the Legislature" which would work like this:  

Those who refuse a demand by the Legislature or delay in responding, conceal information, or provide false statements to the Legislature during an investigation, inquiry, or hearing or when it reviews documents can be fined or, if serious, seen as "contempt of the legislature," according to the KMT lawmakers' bill. 

This would be a criminal offense, and refusing to appear or accused of lying to the Legislature would be punishable by fines or jail time. Those required to comply would not only be government entities, but private ones as well. 

The issues, legal scholars and others note, is that it's not clear where that power begins and ends. For example: 

Lin Chih-chieh (林志潔), a legal professor and a DPP legislative candidate in the January election, warned at a public hearing that if the bills passed, the Legislative Yuan would be able to demand the presence of, for example, TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) and accuse him of contempt of the Legislature if he refused to attend.

The Legislature could also ask TSMC or other enterprises to provide sensitive information related to their commercial secrets, Lin argued.

(I'm quoting at length from Focus Taiwan as their articles don't remain publicly available for long.)

What's more, what constitutes "lying", "delay in responding" or "concealing information" is not particularly clear. How it will be determined that someone called to testify has done these things is not, as far as I know, defined in any known way. The problem here should be obvious: with no clear, impartial mechanism to determine what constitutes a delay, a lie or concealment, who's to say what might be called, for example, a "lie".  Anyone can insist anyone testifying has "lied", threatening criminal punishment, and it's extremely unclear how that power might be wielded fairly. 

People whose testimony (or lack thereof) dissatisfies legislators -- again, this whole thing should chill you to the bone -- can be sent to court 'to impose a sentence' (it's unclear whether the court can overturn the legislators' decision). In other words: 

Furthermore, how contempt of the Legislature is determined, by whom, and the criminal elements of contempt of the Legislature are not explicitly stated in the KMT proposal. Critics believe that if the legislator does not like the content of the official's answer to the question, does not like their attitude, or "interrupts" the official who is answering the legislator's question...under a loose determination, it may be possible that legislators will use their own subjective desires to imprison the official under questioning through court resolutions.

(Translated from Initium Media)

Does this remind you of any other period in Taiwan's history? Perhaps a period of several decades, under which the government could pull you in for questioning and jail you if they didn't like your answers, using ill-defined powers with essentially no oversight? 

I don't think that the Legislative Yuan is going to start mass murdering dissenters or anything like that, but if this doesn't give you Big White Terror Energy...it should.

This lack of clarity seems very much by design: the bill bypassed a line-by-line reading as well as an article-by-article discussion, and according to Initium Media, all versions of the bill from the KMT and TPP were sent to committee while all DPP versions and proposals were blocked. Laws in Taiwan have a period of discussion (sometimes called 'freezing') where parties are meant to negotiate and come to a consensus on new legislation, which is between one and four months -- four months is the norm, but the 'freezing' of some crucial legislation may be shorter. In that period, the KMT refused to engage in any substantive negotiation or discussion with the DPP on this bill.

Because there was no line-by-line reading, and all versions were sent to committee (if I'm reading this correctly), it's unclear which version would have passed the vote on Friday. Not all versions are available publicly, in fact, I'm not even sure if the legislators themselves know what's in the bill. This is very wrong: in general, new legislation under consideration should be publicly available, discussed in detail by lawmakers, and the final version that goes to a vote known. 

It's also worrying that how the bill would play out against previous Constitutional Court rulings, specifically ruling #585, which states that the Legislative Yuan has the power to conduct investigations related to its own functioning but not beyond that: 

Under the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, the scope of the targets or matters subject to the Legislative Yuan’s investigative power does not grow unchecked. The matters to be investigated by the Legislative Yuan must be substantially related to the exercise of its powers under the Constitution. And, in addition, whenever a matter is related to the independent exercise of powers by an organ of the State that is guaranteed by the Constitution, the Legislative Yuan may not extend its investigative power to such a matter.

This interpretation already gives the Legislative Yuan the power to 'compel' testimony on matters under its jurisdiction, but it's unclear if attaching criminal penalties to this would be within the scope of the interpretation. In addition, unlike other countries that have contempt of Congress or Parliament laws, Taiwan already has an investigative body, the Control Yuan.

This body is in charge of impeachment, censure and audit. If they already have the power to investigate government officials, why exactly does the Legislative Yuan also need this power? Indeed, according to Interpretation #585 above, to take that power might well interfere with the "independent exercise" of the Control Yuan, making it unconstitutional. 

Of course, we don't know exactly which powers this will grand the Legislature and whether they step on the Control Yuan's toes, because we don't know what's in the bill! Even the Taipei Bar Association has weighed in with concerns about the bill. It's Bad News Bears, you guys, 

It's pretty clear that the goal of the legislators is to increase their own power during a term when the KMT has a legislative plurality, but the DPP has the presidency. It's not about punishing those who lie -- KMT legislators lie all the time -- and not really about filling a much-needed gap in the government's ability to function, as there's an investigative body that already does this. In other words, it's exactly what critics have called it: a power grab.

If this seems reminiscent to you of some of the black box politics characteristic of the Ma Ying-jeou era, that's because it is. The same sort of 'let's push this through and not make it entirely clear what the legislation entails' is the exact sort of authoritarian bullshit attitude that helped spark the Sunflower Movement in 2014. While the details differ, broadly speaking, the strategy feels quite similar to the attempted passage of the Cross-Strait Services and Trade Agreement (CSSTA or 服貿) in that year. 

With the KMT more or less back in power in the Legislative Yuan, it's not surprising that they are exactly who they've always been. 

Friday was voting day for the bill, and anyone could have predicted that fights over it would break out in the Legislature. Again according to Initium Media, the clause requiring the president to address the Legislative Yuan and then answer questions (which is somewhat unprecedented in ROC history) was passed by a show of hands -- meaning the names of those voting for and against were not recorded as is custom -- but due to the physical altercations, all other parts of the bill have yet to be dealt with. 

I'm not sure exactly why, but the violence in the Legislative Yuan on Friday somehow seemed more serious, or touched a deeper nerve, than scuffles I've read about previously. To me, the three most notable instances of scuffles or outright violence were DPP Legislator Kuo Kuo-wen (郭國文) grabbing the documents and sprinting out of the legislative chamber with them, which, to be clear, that guy rules.

Chung Chia-pin (鍾佳濱) of the DPP tackled the KMT's Chen Ching-hui (陳菁徽) while both were on the podium; Chung claims he slipped on a piece of paper, and from the video evidence, that seems likely. Notably, in some reports, pan-blue mouthpiece TVBS, despite offering a pretty awesome metal-lite background to the footage, seems to have edited out the part where Chung fell. 

Finally, DPP Legislator, democracy activist and founder of Doublethink Lab Puma Shen (沈伯洋) was  pushed off the rostrum and landed on his head. Shen was hospitalized along with five other lawmakers, though his condition at the time appeared to be the most severe. 

As of today, Shen appears to be in recovery -- or at least, he's conscious -- telling the public that the TPP's three-point statement on the issue is, essentially, three lies, and that they are the ones in "contempt of the Legislature". 

According to CNA, the TPP claims that only some reforms were on the agenda for that day, and the "contempt of the Legislature" was not. I'm honestly unclear on this point, but Shen claims it's wrong. Second, the TPP claims that the DPP either "didn't understand" the timing of the discussions, or put forward excessive motions to adjourn so no discussions could take place. Shen counters that in truth, the DPP called for adjournments because the KMT and TPP wouldn't discuss the bill, and accuses them of confiscating or dismissing DPP proposals, so what could the DPP do but resist the process? Finally, the TPP claimed that the 'show of hands' method of voting is a legal and recognized method. Shen points out that the vote counts are still unclear as a result -- some of them don't match up -- and as the tools to register names of who voted for what were available, intentionally not using them is not a good method. 

For anyone thinking "well that's just majority party strategy", the DPP as far as I can remember never did this to the KMT in eight years of having control.

In the aftermath, the DPP's Chung has apologized to Chen (the woman who was tackled), and clarified that he was also in pain from the fall. The KMT, as far as I can tell, has not apologized for injuring Shen or anyone else, with caucus whip Fu Kun-chi daring the DPP to sue the KMT over their actions. 

Not to get too biased or anything, but that corrupt sex pest really is a massive wet sack of steamy garbage juice.

Fu has also called the DPP "thuggish", despite arguably the worst injury being sustained by a DPP legislator. That's to be expected, though, the KMT loves characterizing the DPP as ignorant rednecks who could not possibly wield power with the grace and authority of the educated KMT. It's a also a time-honored tactic around the world used to discredit activist movements. Want to turn the public against a group? Call them thugs!

Of course, the DPP weren't the ones who terrorized Taiwan for decades under the White Terror and Martial Law dictatorship like thugs.

Anyway, calling anyone "thuggish" is pretty rich coming from, yet again, a corrupt sex pest. 

Speaking of the old dictatorship, the KMT also accused the DPP of being "used to monopolizing power". Hmm, let's review: which party imposed decades of Martial Law so heinous that it made the Japanese colonial era look like a paradise in comparison? Sent dissidents to Green Island, tortured them and killed them, claiming they were all "communists" (not all were, and regardless it shouldn't have been a crime in the first place)? Engaged in mass killing sprees after 228? Let the dictator's son run the secret police, deciding more or less on personal whims who lived and who died? 

Which party ruled Taiwan with violence for so long, and so horribly, that the people started organizing to force it to end? Which party's crimes against the people are now memorialized in prisons-turned-museums on Green Island and in New Taipei? Was that the DPP?

Which party, out of approximately thirty years of democratization, has held a majority in the Legislature for twenty of them (so, about two-thirds), even when the opposition had the presidency? Was that the DPP? Which party engaged in legislative chicanery so preposterous that a bunch of students occupied thei chamber and rallied many, if not most, Taiwanese to their cause? Which party's president is leaving office with unprecedented popularity, as opposed to her KMT predecessor who wishes he could have hit double digits?

So, which party again can we perhaps accuse of trying to monopolize power? Because it sure as hell doesn't look like the DPP.

With the inauguration tomorrow and fresh deliberations over the bill set for the day after, it's unclear what's next. I have noticed, though, that with the old KMT tactics of black-boxing their trash and calling the DPP "thuggish" for resisting, that perhaps a spark of that old civil disobedience is coming back. 

It's not that protests simply stopped after Tsai took office. There's been a Panay Kusui-led protest encampment in 228 Park for a very long time, focused on Indigenous land rights. There's a laor protest more or less every year, though they don't have much staying power. There were the marriage equality rallies. 

But it sure does feel like civil society has gone somewhat quiet in these years. I don't think I've attended a protest/rally since marriage equality (though, to be clear, my health took a tumble during the pandemic as my career picked up, so often I just haven't got the time). Many have commented that younger Taiwanese, now almost a generation removed from the Wild Strawberries and Sunflowers, and two generations from the Wild Lilies, don't seem to have that same activist spirit, aren't worried about China (and thus care less about the KMT's foreign policy of basically selling out Taiwan) or aren't the angry young protesters who helped bring Tsai to power in 2016 -- in fact, they're not necessarily enamored with the DPP at all. 

On the one hand, I've kind of noticed this, too. The desire to go out there and fight for something better hasn't seemed as alive of late. Perhaps it's because President Tsai, unlike her predecessor, actually did a good job leading Taiwan -- and I do think, with some criticisms and imperfections, that she did. Perhaps they're just used to the DPP being 'in power', and the people with the power are usually not the ones that inspire the youth. 

But now KMT avarice is laid bare once again, which was always going to happen once they were given national-level power again. I'm not sure why so many people didn't see it coming, and while it's certainly not a good thing, maybe the old fire will come back. Maybe the next generation will see once again what utter rapacious dipshits their parents voted for, and stand for something better. 

Spontaneous protests broke out outside the Legislative Yuan on Friday night, and on Saturday Internet celebrity and commentator Four-Pronged Cat (四叉貓), known for infiltrating and subverting KMT protests, held a "pilgrimage" to the street below the home of KMT legislator Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯). She's the one who pulled out a musical instrument during the fighting and played the ROC national anthem -- honestly, don't ask. Apparently, people passing Hsu's house deemed to be protesters had been interrogated or otherwise documented by police, which frankly feels quite undemocratic. For a small-scale action, it's still impressive that, apparently, hundreds of people showed up. 

These are small numbers by the Taiwan protest standards I'm used to, but it feels like a step in the right direction as we head into the unknown territory of a third-term DPP presidency, and a KMT-led legislature that seems more cupidinous than ever. We're going to need that vim and vigor from everyone, not just Gen Z Taiwanese, to do something about it.

Defining Ma Ying-jeou's "relevance"

He deserves an unflattering screenshot

I recently read with interest Donovan Smith's analysis of the continued relevance of former president and slightly burnt mannequin Ma Ying-jeou. Smith argued that despite being called "irrelevant" by the pan-green camp, that his power player position in the KMT meant he could not possibly be so. 

Donovan makes a good point. When it comes to shaping KMT policy and which puppet or inveterate Very Good Boy he'll trot out as his skin mask at rallies and for elections, and whose prior image he'll eviscerate in order to turn him (they're always male) into his next puppet, Ma is frighteningly relevant. 

In fact, I'd argue one cannot discuss KMT policies and directions without at some point discussing Ma. Even when he's not got his talons into this or that KMT candidate, his vision for what the KMT -- and Taiwan as a whole -- should be still shape the policies, platforms, desires and wet dreams of hardcore deep blue supporters. While their numbers may be dwindling, they're still a political force and not dismissed so lightly. 

So yes, in that sense, Smith is right. Perhaps, though, we should consider what these commentators mean when they call Ma "irrelevant" -- because it depends somewhat on how you define the term. 

The thing is, one might interpret political relevance as requiring being at least somewhat in touch with the general (or at least popular) consensus. You're relevant if your own ideas and commentary reflect the national mood, however roughly. If what you say resonates with the public and perhaps most importantly, the voters. 

In this sense, Ma is indeed irrelevant. It would be easy to point to his Deutsche Welle interview just before the election. He laid down some real whoppers here. Leaving aside "Taiwan can never win a war with China" (debatable, but I'll give him that based on the power imbalance), Ma stated that we should "trust" Xi Jinping, a point so ridiculous that it was basically an own goal for the KMT. I don't think it lost them the election, but it didn't help. However, if we're talking about Ma's relevance, I found this bit more alarming (and mendacious): 

Unification is something that our constitution says [sic]. So it's actually acceptable to Taiwan. But it has to be done peacefully, and through a democratic process. If that can be done, the chances are people in Taiwan may be interested in accepting this.

He says that again later on -- "if it is peaceful and democratic, the people of Taiwan will probably accept this." It's not a slip.

The constitution doesn't actually say that -- if it ever did, the series of amendments adopted from1990s through 2005 extirpated it -- but whatever.  It's not even the ludicrous notion that unification could possibly be peaceful or democratic when the government Taiwan would be unifying with openly doesn't care about democratic norms, and their massive military preparations indicate they don't care much about peace, either. 

What renders him irrelevant is the second half of that quote: the idea that because the constitution says it and theoretically it could be voted for (which would mean no immediate war), that "chances are" Taiwanese people would be "interested in" such a path. 

Every major poll, whether we're talking status quo or Taiwanese vs. Chinese identity, and the past three presidential elections have shown that the people of Taiwan are not interested in peaceful unification. Whether or not it's peaceful is not the point; they don't want unification period. They want to continue to govern themselves under the sovereignty Taiwan has as a result of the so-called 'status quo'. That is, a form of independence  (depending on how you define 'independence' -- my definition includes Taiwan's current state and so does President Tsai's). 

For such a thing to be "democratic", Taiwanese people would have to vote for it in a state of non-coercion and without political interference from China. Ma seems to think they might, if dialogue continues. The polls, however, say otherwise. If unification is deeply unpopular, and most Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese, chances are that won't change. 

It wouldn't avoid a war, by the way. In the highly unlikely event that Taiwan chooses this path, once they see that they've quite literally used their democracy to vote away said democracy, and brought all sorts of oppression upon themselves the second they 'democratically' diverge from Beijing's plans for Taiwan, all hell will break loose. It will make Hong Kong look like a children's birthday party. There will be a war of some sort, and there will be violence and slaughter.

There is no such thing as peaceful unification with the PRC, because even if Taiwan 'agreed' to it (which they wouldn't, because most people are not that stupid), the mass death starts when they realize what they've lost and begin to resist. 

To even imply that democratic and peaceful unification is possible, and that Taiwanese would be interested in it -- or that they'd be so gullible as to believe it were possible -- is such an extragalactically out-there thing to say with a straight face that I simply cannot reconcile it with any notion of "relevance". Ma's finger isn't even on his own pulse, if he has one, let alone the pulse of the nation. 

He doesn't stop the Chundertown Express at any point during this interview, by the way. When it's pointed out to him that Taiwanese don't identify as Chinese, especially among the youth, and reject unification and the 1992 Consensus, he says those young people need to "understand" what cross-strait relations and the 92 Consensus mean "to them" -- one China, respective interpretations. He takes it for granted that this interpretation (which China has never agreed with, they've never accepted the 'respective interpretations' aspect, so it's not a consensus at all) would be popular and accepted among Taiwanese. 

But it wouldn't, because to do so, they'd have to fundamentally believe they are Chinese, which they do not. (Ma does not engage with the poll results showing most Taiwanese do not identify as Chinese; most likely he believes that forcing pro-China changes to the education system will sufficiently brainwash that notion out of their minds). 

His off-the-rails commentary (or lack thereof) on public opinion and what Taiwanese "will probably accept" is so far removed from what Taiwanese seem to actually be thinking that I simply cannot call it "relevant". 

When the presidential candidate you taxidermied into your own little puppet boy publicly distances himself from your words, you might still be a political player but when it comes to public opinion and the path Taiwan is on, again, you're not exactly relevant. 

On that note, Ma only remains relevant within the KMT because their stance on China has not evolved to be more palatable in Taiwan. You might argue that they're hanging onto him because they have nothing better -- he's the last KMT candidate to win a presidential election. I'd argue the opposite: the KMT's platform is stuck in the dark ages because Ma has his talons in it; he won't let it evolve or modernize. 

I suppose that's a form of relevance, but not in the way most people likely mean.

To be truly relevant, you do indeed need to have some basic understanding of current public opinion, why it is what it is, and how to present your ideas in such a way that they might at least be considered in that light. Ma is constitutionally incapable of this -- pun intended.

It's not surprising, of course. This dude is deeply in love with Chinese-style authoritarianism and seems to wish more than anything that the KMT itself had the ability to be just as authoritarian. You know, like in the bad old days when they could just drag anyone who disagreed out back and shoot them.  

Looking at it another way, consider commentary about Ma's irrelevance to be a backlash against the way he acts every time he goes to China, and much of the resulting media coverage. He certainly traipsed around that country like he was some sort of ambassador on an official dialogue and peace mission. Whatever part of his brain had a stroke leaving him unable to empathize with Taiwanese people seems to have been filled with delusions of grandeur, that he can represent a side of the 'Republic of China' that China can talk to, because they agree they're part of some interpretation of China.

Even basic reporting on the visit implied (without saying outright) that his visit was somehow relevant to Taiwan's current government, even though Ma wasn't there in any official role. He was basically a glorified tourist-cum-useful-idiot. Other media make it sound like he is some sort of rational, peace-seeking emissary with the potential to "build ties" and -- again it is implied -- reduce tensions. That no serving Taiwan president has visited China is mentioned in such reports to imply that it matters to Taiwan if a former president does so. But I'm not sure it does, when his party doesn't even have the presidency. In terms of Taiwan's policy vis-à-vis China, he is irrelevant and his visit is irrelevant.

I even heard a radio segment in the Western media on his visit that I can't find again (so it's not linkable), but which astoundingly managed to get every basic fact right, while getting the story completely wrong. It implied again that he is some sort of peaceful messenger from Taiwan, creating hopeful dialogue and averting war unlike that dastardly Lai Ching-te whom Beijing dislikes for unspecified reasons. 

No discussion of how Ma's party had just lost the election in a historic third term for the DPP, possibly helped along a bit by that DW interview. No discussion of why Beijing dismisses Lai, or who exactly is refusing official dialogue (hint: it's not Lai). No mention of how unpopular Ma's opinions are in Taiwan, and how profoundly he misunderstands and outright ignores public opinion. 

Listeners abroad who don't follow these issues might take that hopeful note to heart -- oh look, a former Taiwan president is looking for dialogue with China, that can only mean a reduction in tensions! They'll completely miss the context that he's not speaking for the government, his trips are not affecting current policy, it's not even Taiwan who doesn't want dialogue but rather China gumming up the process, and his views do not enjoy broad social support.

That is, the take-home impression might be that Ma Ying-jeou is more relevant than he actually is.

When that's what the rest of the world is reporting about the guy who left office as the most unpopular elected president in Taiwan's history, like he's a beacon of hope in ever-escalating tensions (which are implied to be created by the DPP when in fact they are entirely manufactured by China), then perhaps one does want to call him irrelevant in response, no?

Because he's not an emissary. He has no official role. He's not in China to build ties between the two governments, because he no longer works for the Taiwanese government. He's not "building cultural and social ties" because his own views are completely out of tune with Taiwanese society and culture. He's promoting himself and the KMT to their support base.

While he's not quite sunk to the level of "local resident surnamed Ma" or "Taipei area man", he doesn't enjoy the broad social respect that a former president might expect. According to one poll, less than 40% of voters approved of his last trip to China in 2023, and that one was ostensibly of a more personal nature. 

Of course, it really wasn't: he was attempting to set the groundwork for the KMT's China policy, giving the KMT's presidential candidate less room to offer their own interpretation of cross-strait affairs. That worked for awhile, with Hou Yu-ih seeming to capitulate to Ma on matters of policy.

As we saw in the DW interview, however, Ma eventually seemed to take it a step too far and ended up with Hou declining to sign on to the broader Ma vision for the rejuvenation of the great Chinese nation.

Ma himself seems to think his actions, and especially these trips to China, have an effect on cross-strait relations, but from what I can tell, they don't. He seems to believe he can convince Taiwanese voters of the fundamental correctness of his vision, and their Chineseness. It has not worked. He tried to Frankenstein an opposition candidate to the DPP, and failed.

So when we say he's "not relevant", we mean that his actions do not reflect a broad social consensus and don't actually change much in Taiwan. When his actions are reported on as though he actually were the highly-respected elder statesman he believes himself to be, it gives the wrong impression to readers who don't know the whole context. 

When Ma actually has a policy success as an elder statesman that enjoys the support of the electorate, maybe we can talk about his return to relevance. When he lays out a groundwork for cross-strait policy that the ruling party doesn't feel they have to distance himself from, that might matter. And it would be unfair to dismiss him as completely irrelevant. His lightly-melted spectre haunted Hou's campaign and continues to rattle his chains in the halls of KMT headquarters too much for that to be true.

But if you define 'relevant' as "taking actions which have a tangible impact on Taiwan's governance", or as "engaging in statesmanship which enjoys broad support", he's not exactly relevant, either. If you include "has some understanding of public opinion and incorporates it into his actions and statements", he's so deep in left field that he's left the stadium and is wandering alone in the woods. He doesn't even seem to understand that public opinion exists, let alone that he should consider it.

And if a rando in the woods babbles on and on about how Taiwanese will choose "peaceful unification" and no-one's there to agree with him, did he really say anything at all?

Five great things to read after the election

I spend so much time critiquing the media that sometimes, I like to point out pieces that are worth reading. The well-written (or spoken), thoughtful stuff that either makes you think, teaches you something, or elevates Taiwanese voices above the general din of foreign commentators. 

Not all of these are about the election specifically. Some are, but some are more about critical points and interesting ideas being made more accessible to international audiences, simply because more Taiwanese voices are slowly starting to be heard. 


A survey of Taiwanese history

First up is one I've already linked: Kathrin Hille's survey of Taiwan's history in the Financial Times. This is the article to give someone who doesn't know much about Taiwanese history, but would like to learn more. It gets a lot of little, often-overlooked details right without being overly long. For example, it's one of the only historical surveys clarifying both that the Qing, for most of their colonial reign, did not control all of Taiwan, and explores in some detail how 'not Chinese' Taiwan really became under Japanese colonial rule -- including in the minds of most Chinese leaders.

These crucial details are often overlooked in historical summaries of Taiwan, which tend to make it seem more tied to China than it ever really has been. It's engaging, readable and accurate. I honestly can't think of anything I'd fix. 

Why Taiwan's election matters -- for Taiwan, and for the ideals of democracy

Next, Michelle Kuo's excellent piece in The Guardian is well worth a read. I love this one because it centers everything Taiwan has gotten right. Essentially, that Taiwan may have its issues but the fundamentals are good. It also correctly positions Taiwanese democracy as something that grew out of the resistance movement to KMT dictatorship. That is, it came from the Tangwai, the fighters, the Taiwanese insisting on something better. 

Certainly, KMT supporters want to believe that they are the party of democratization, because it's easier to take comfort in that than to think about all the ways their party attempted to stop it from happening, and the leaders they take as role models were objectively bad people. (The one KMT leader who is actually owed some respect, Lee Teng-hui, is the one they kicked out of the party.)

Moving back to Taiwan

Next up is a fascinating listen-and-read from NPR on Taiwanese Americans who have chosen to move back to Taiwan. It addresses all sorts of topics, from how their families might feel about their choices, to the relative feeling of safety in Taiwan despite the geopolitical threats.

There's a lot here that expats who do not have Taiwanese heritage, like me, might not necessarily realize when it comes to Taiwanese Americans who make the move, and topics we probably wouldn't think to investigate on our own. 


Emily Y. Wu on CNN

After the election, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Emily Y. Wu on the election results and what they mean for Taiwan. I want to see more of this -- getting Taiwanese voices in the international media rather than bringing on some rando white guy commentator. Wu's answers were articulate and thoughtful, providing perspective on the results and why China's threats have not deterred Taiwanese voters. She does especially well in describing why, exactly, Taiwan is already an independent nation. 

I get so tired of "should Taiwan be independent" or "will Taiwan get independence" or "can we support Taiwan independence" as though Taiwan is not currently independent. If it isn't, who governs it? Someone other than the people of Taiwan? 

I was a little taken aback by Amanpour's seeming lack of preparation. She says Lai referred to Taiwan as "Republic of Taiwan, China", and then double-confirmed it. Of course, he did no such thing. He calls it exactly what President Tsai has always called it -- either Republic of China, Taiwan or Taiwan, Republic of China. Could you even imagine what would happen if a president of Taiwan switched the two names?

Amanpour also seemed to brain fart on President Tsai's name, but hey, we all have bad days. Regardless, Emily was insightful and worth listening to.

An election scholar's take on the results

Finally, there's Frozen Garlic's take on the election results. There's little here that I didn't already know, but Batto lays out a clear narrative of what happened, and what it might mean for the parties, the government and the nation going forward. He spends a lot of time discussing who might be speaker, what it could mean, and how much power the TPP now wields in the legislature (as well as what would happen if there were a battle over Lai's premier pick, and how that would affect the various parties -- especially the TPP). 

The only thing I'd add is that it would be interesting to see the DPP back the TPP's Huang Shan-shan as speaker. I'm not sure they will, and it would be unusual for the speaker to come from a party that holds only eight seats, but it might be a way to get the TPP to consider the DPP's agenda more favorably, rather than simply trying to convince the TPP to support the DPP pick for speaker. 

As a bonus, if you're interested in how the tiny parties did, there's Donovan Smith's take to read, as well. He spends less time on the speaker and premiership and more on how various parties' fortunes have risen and fallen.