The first televised debate in preparation for the March 22 presidential election, in which the public will have an opportunity to ask questions to the candidates, will take place on Sunday.
A few days ago, the main organizers -- several newspapers and TV stations -- unveiled the list of the 20 participants who have been selected to ask questions of the candidates. The categories are wide ranging, from the cross-strait issue and foreign affairs to birth rates and the gambling industry. It is clear that the public has high expectations for the policy implementation of the next president.
The main organizers of the debate said that not many questions will deal with national defense, foreign affairs or cross-strait issues, as most people seem to be concerned with living standards and the economy. We can therefore hope that the two candidates will use this platform to propose concrete and comprehensive policies on matters that clearly are of concern to Taiwanese.
In the mind of the public, the president should possess wide ranging capabilities and have an opinion on and a policy for every issue.
There is a concern, however: Regardless of how many concrete promises the two candidates make in the televised debate, the question is, what are the chances that these policy promises really will be implemented? An even more serious issue is the question of whether the candidates should be making promises in the first place.
Under the constitutional system, the Cabinet is the nation's highest executive institution. This raises the question of whether it is in line with the spirit of the Constitution for presidential candidates to make all kinds of policy promises and whether the future premier is bound to implement the promises made by the president during an election campaign.
Looking at political realities, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) holds less than one-quarter of all seats in the legislature and the party's presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh (
If Hsieh were to win the presidential election, then how could he -- if he really is to be a passive president who delegates executive power -- implement all the promises he made during the election campaign? Or will he simply blame the legislature for being a "source of chaos," or claim that promises made during the election campaign do not necessarily have to be implemented?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
The most preposterous aspect of the constitutional system is, in fact, the huge discrepancy between the public's expectations and understanding of the role of the president and the actual limitations that are imposed on the president by the Constitution.
The election campaign should be an opportunity to educate the public on these issues. But the media, the political elite and even the presidential candidates have acted in a way that increases the discrepancies between fact and perception.
In this context, some people have begun to wonder if now might not be the appropriate time to move from a semi-presidential to a clear-cut Cabinet system.
In the 2004 presidential election campaign, I was lucky enough to be one of the people who was allowed to question the candidates in what was the nation's first-ever televised debate between presidential candidates.
My question was this: "During every presidential campaign, the various candidates bring forward a multitude of policy proposals. However, according to the current Constitution, the Cabinet is the nation's highest executive office. Although the Cabinet is answerable to the legislature, it is the president who has the right to appoint the premier. Until the Constitution is amended or until there is a new constitution in place, what role do you think a presidential candidate who promises to abide by the Constitution should play when it comes to formulating public policy if we assume that he or she wants to follow the spirit of constitutionalism and responsible politics? And if the Constitution is amended, or if a new constitution is adopted, in what way do you think the roles of the president and the premier should be adjusted?"
I am still waiting for an answer.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US President Donald Trump is an extremely stable genius. Within his first month of presidency, he proposed to annex Canada and take military action to control the Panama Canal, renamed the Gulf of Mexico, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion. He has managed to offend many leaders on the planet Earth at warp speed. Demanding that Europe step up its own defense, the Trump administration has threatened to pull US troops from the continent. Accusing Taiwan of stealing the US’ semiconductor business, it intends to impose heavy tariffs on integrated circuit chips
RSS