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
War, possibly global, will define the coming decade — so it is crucial that Taiwanese decide now what their freedom and their lives are worth — perhaps starting with a defense budget of 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The force that threatens Taiwan, the Communist Party of China (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), asserts that a free, or even worse, an “independent” Taiwan is the greatest threat to the CCP’s dictatorship. Accordingly, they are prepared to kill Taiwanese by the millions, which also will initiate their longer war against democracies. Should it succeed, Chinese sources are all but openly
Vincent Gao (高志凱), vice president of the Center for China and Globalization and former interpreter for Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) recently gave an interview with al-Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan in which Gao appeared overwhelmed on multiple occasions. When asked about sensitive topics such as Taiwan and Xinjiang, Gao attempted to adhere to the official position of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but quickly succumbed to Hasan’s precise and consistent questioning, which exposed the flaws in the CCP’s positions. His views on unification with Taiwan were also widely criticized. Throughout the interview, Gao reiterated the importance of “one China.” He said it is “not
Amid China’s escalating military harassment of Taiwan, a teaser released on July 23 of the new TV series Zero Day (零日攻擊), a local production portraying a Chinese attack on Taiwan, attracted more than 1 million views in a week, sparking an emotional response and discussions across the nation. Partly funded by the government and scheduled to air next year, ‘Zero Day’ depicts a Chinese warplane disappearing in the Taiwan Strait and China using the search as an excuse to mount a naval blockade of Taiwan and launch an invasion. The 17-minute trailer shows clips how Beijing could increase its choke hold
Oil, copper, soybeans and a handful of others monopolized the attention — but of all commodities, the humble lump of iron ore benefited the most from the Chinese economic boom of the past 25 years. It was an astonishing bonanza: From the late 1990s to earlier this year, iron ore prices jumped nearly 10-fold, more than any other major commodity; traded volume tripled; Australian commodity tycoons become billionaires; mining companies turned, even briefly, into Wall Street darlings; and mighty legal battles broke for control of the last untapped mineral deposits. Now, it is over: The greatest commodity boom thus far of the